[time-nuts] Neutrinos not so fast? (defective connector)
tholmes at woh.rr.com
Thu Feb 23 02:22:56 UTC 2012
Well said regarding the willingness to discuss the science in public,
Magnus. Too often we get the media wanting to hang someone for a mistake
rather than help the process of understanding. The folks at OPERA should be
commended for being open about what is going on, even if no one is ever
publicly crucified for the connector problem.
Tom Holmes, N8ZM
Tipp City, OH
> -----Original Message-----
> From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com] On
> Behalf Of Magnus Danielson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:10 PM
> To: time-nuts at febo.com
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Neutrinos not so fast? (defectove connector)
> On 02/22/2012 11:26 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message<9A458DBA-3875-43B2-8383-5CA2F86BE8E2 at leapsecond.com>,
> "Tom Van Baak
> > (lab)" writes:
> >> Could be on the electrical side of the adapter, not the optical side.
> >> It's not impossible to get 60 ns of phase or trigger error with RF
> >> connectors.
> > I don't buy that explanation.
> > It's very hard to get 60 ns *consistent* phase or trigger error, with
> > any kind of connector, almost no matter how you go about it.
> OTDR works just as normal TDR. If the fibre is not connected you get a
> and not enough transmission. This is what you use OTDRs for.
> I agree it needs more details to be believable.
> > 20m of extra fiber sounds *much* more plausible.
> 60 ns is more like 12 m of fibre. SMF-28 has a refraction index of about
> 1.45 depending on the wavelength of the laser. I use the rule of thumb
that 1 ns is
> 3 dm in free air and 2 dm in coax and fibre, it's usually good enough for
> check calculations. Oh, and it's about 40 feet.
> Anyway, I would like to see much more detailed description to see that it
> was due to this error. Also I'd love to see it repeated such that one can
> time error go "on" and "off".
> > Inventing an excuse about a loose connector to cover up the mistake
> > sounds even more plausible.
> > You really don't want to defend your phd dissertation, being known as
> > the idiot who made a fool of both CERN and SanGrasso in one go.
> This is science, making a spectacular error and then explain it in
> detail can teach a lot more than a otherwise uneventful day at the lab,
> the same measurement.
> Learning something means better prepared to avoid it next time.
> Experience is being built.
> Still don't know what really happened here, rumours at the best.
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com To unsubscribe, go to
> and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts