Interesting...but needs proving (Score 1)

Ok, I've seen a number of intelligent (and even more not so intelligent) comments on this FTL communications device. Many have shown some good math (some of which is beyond me) to demonstrate why this patent is wrong. The problem here is really two-fold: the patent shows NO math to prove itself and no one else has reproduced the results. Science is driven by reproduction of results (along with a hearty imagination and unstoppable will), so someone must test this device. Here's the basic plan: Build two devices (the plans at the patent web site seem complete enough). Get four identical transceivers. Now, make two 'stations', each station has two transceivers, one FTL antenna, and a PC. The stations need to be as far apart as possible, but within normal range of the transceivers. A program for the PCs will be required that generates a short signal, say a 1KHz tone for 1 second. This program will need to be able to 'hear' one tone, start a time, then stop the timer when it 'hears' the second tone. Here's what happens: At station one, the PC sends the tone (OK, doesn't require a PC here) to both transceivers at the same time, one of which (obviously) is connected to the FTL antenna, the other, to a normal antenna. This produces two signals at the same time, from the same place (a couple meters apart). Station two will receive the two signals via its two transceivers (set up identically to station one). If the patent is correct, then there will exists a time difference between the two signals, which will be calculated by the PC. The problem with this plan is the requirement for a large distance between the two stations. The speed of light being so fast, the PC may have difficulty calculating the differnce if the range is too short. Conversly, many com signals are line-of-sight and reletively short-ranged. Any HAM opporator can help find the right frequncy and power level for the test, though, and, perhaps, a group of people can run the test, say someone in California, and someone else in New York or London. The point is, reproduce the results. If they can't be reproduced, its a fraud. If they can be, then somebody better find the math to describe it!