Re: EME moonbounce?

[Charles Zwicky <cazwicky@earthlink.net>]

Neither of these ideas are "sound" so to speak.. electrons travel at 
the speed of light, so no amount of wire would add appreciable delay 
to a signal...

>I'm belated to respond here, again. I was thinking of small 
>resistors - circuit board style. If one sent a signal through a 
>whole mess of 'em, re-amplified as necessary in between, would it 
>delay the signal appreciably? Or would it take such an ungodly army 
>of them that it would make it all ridiculous?
>
>I liked the elegance of a simple wire, but I can see that the 
>length, among other considerations, would make it less elegant that 
>I first thought.
>
>I LOVE the opto-delay idea, extravagant though it sounds. Let's 
>mention it to Fripp :).
>
>Daryl Shawn
>www.swanwelder.com
>
>>yes, due to the fact that a long cable has a high resistance, it 
>>would be necessary to boost the input signal in order to obtain 
>>some very small signal at the far end. That is why repeaters are 
>>used on undersea cables, each section is amplified before sending 
>>into the next section.
>>
>>hmmm, I don't know much about optics, but it would be cool to build 
>>a box which takes the audio signal, converts to optical, then 
>>bounces off of two mirrors set x distance apart, when the number of 
>>bounces equals the distance you want, send the signal to the 
>>output. Voila, an Opto - Delay! This would also probably be the 
>>most expensive delay known to man, since it would require precise 
>>laser-optic type mirrors and a laser.
>>
>>Eric


-- 

...
http://www.zmix.net

http://www.esession.com/ChuckZwicky

http://albumcredits.com/zmix