Gravitational Engineering - What We Can Do Now

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mark] I tell you right now that I did your experiment and the time delay is T. What do you make out of that number?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
As long as the distance is also known, I can derive the lower limit on the signal speed.
And I'd expect that a sane experimenter would produce a distance-delay plot...
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> You're assuming signal distortion and signal delay are orthogonal,...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
No I don't. The mainstream physics insists that the signal delay must be not less than that for speed of light. I seek this limit beaten.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>what an "attack on output" means?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
The word "attack" here means the leading front of the signal.

I think timing should be independant. That is a careful calculation of distance to know signal link time between X'mtr and Rcv'r and then generate computer controlled sequences to start and stop the test sequence in correct real time. Any signal time between X & R must be abated artifically.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mark] What the setup is missing is a syncronizarion of events. When you excite the source crystal you must syncronize your clock in the measuring instrument. This is usually difficult to do. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> That's the easiest and the most self-evident part of setup. That's why I didn't comment on that specifically.
You just use a strobe from the pulse generator or from the oscilloscope to trigger a measuring event. Then you use the oscilloscope to measure the relative timing of the pulse at the xmtr - that'd be the "zero" time of which you then measure the delay in the rcvr signal. Doing so means intro'ing a small systematic error (into the prudent direction) that slightly extends the "time in flight"; I don't expect it to be critical at all, we'll hardly ever need those picoseconds back...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

That's the easiest and the most self-evident part of setup.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It doesn't not appear as such to me. My impression is you must move one crystal along the axis to get the gravitational force change. What you must syncronize is the start of the movement with the start of the recording of the output signal. One part involves mechanical motion and you need more than a strobe, something like a laser interferometer will do.

keep adding what it takes to get an accurate reading and this is slowly turning into a million dollar experimental setup. It may worth trying it. I still doubt the signal to noise ratio will be any good for this type of measurements.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mark] It doesn't not appear as such to me. My impression is you must move one crystal along the axis to get the gravitational force change. What you must syncronize is the start of the movement with the start of the recording of the output signal.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> If such is your conclusion then you didn't understand the basic idea of the experiment. We just measure the delay at one point, then move to the other point and so on.
I find it very strange that you systematically try to convince the audience of the impossibility of a cheap and simple experiment. What's your problem with that?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[AB]
I find it very strange that you systematically try to convince the audience of the impossibility of a cheap and simple experiment.

What's your problem with that?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
AB,

I share your frustration with people like Mark*, but professional pessimists have always been around and I see no sign that this will ever change. Professional optimists like you (???) and I have always had to deal with them, and (damnit) this is probably a good thing in the long run. They buzz around like flies on a t*rd, ask a lot of mostly ridiculous questions and make a lot of mostly ridiculous pronouncements.

But <b>because</b> they think differently than we do they occasionally ask a question or make a pronouncement that is not ridiculous.

Bottom line - I believe they are a resource that we should (damnit) put up with. I always read what they write, and think about it, but I mostly just let it go without comment. <b>This takes practice.</b>

Comments? Yes, from the "pessimists", too.

LB

* Actually, I'm not positive Mark fits into this category. That's a big part of the frustration factor. In fact, I can remember asking one or two professional-pesimist-style ridiculous questions over the years. Perhaps it was just a bad hair day?