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}]
Do you have a model for linking measurements to physical quantities?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

A really good question. I've been working on a physical description of what we are trying to do that may help us define these links. Comments?

=====

When a mass is moved, its gravitational acceleration field moves with it.

Before mass A is moved nearby mass B feels a slight pull in the direction of mass A.

After mass A is moved, mass B feels a slight pull in the new direction of mass B.

Alternatively mass A can be moved so that its direction relative to B is constant but the distance changes. The strength of the pull felt by B changes rather than its direction. I'm pretty sure this is the better approach, so I will assume it until I have reason to switch.

We want to see what happens to mass B <b>while</b> mass A is moving. We can arrange circumstances so that mass A is moving continuously (for example by rotating or vibrating it) causing mass B to feel a pull that is constantly changing in amplitude.

The steady pull of mass A on mass B is very small, but it is pretty large compared to the change in that pull as mass A moves to and fro a few decimeters away. Mechanical resonance is the only way we have now of amplifying this tiny effect in mass B. But the unofficial results from Walker-Dual say it does occur.

======

I have a concern about using crystals for this. Masses can oscillate in a number of different ways.

A long thin rod, attached to anchor points at each end (like a piano string), is obviously moving its center of mass when it vibrates. A similar rod floating in space, unanchored and vibrating at the same frequency will move about half of its mass in one direction while moving the other half in the opposite direction. A similar situation exists with harmonics. Even if the rod is anchored at the ends it can be induced to vibrate such that there is a standing node at the midpoint. Half the mass moves to while the rest moves fro. Up close you can still tell that the acceleration field is changing, but if you get very far away the changes from the various parts of the rod will tend to cancel each other out.

You can also get masses to vibrate by alternately stretching and compressing in different directions. Mass is moving, changing the acceleration field, but in ways that tend to cancel at a distance like above. I don't know the names of the modes, but I know that crystals like to stretch and compress rather than bend back and forth.

We will have to understand our resonant masses pretty well to be sure we know what we are getting. A crystal may or may not be the best choice of mass for one or both parts of our device. Hopefully AB knows enough about crystals to guide us in this area.

Identical masses for transmitter and receiver are not necessary as long as they have the same resonant frequency.

The transmitting mass needs to be like the captive rod vibrating at its fundamental frequency, to provide for the largest possible mass displacement. The receiving mass can be like this, but doesn't necessarily have to. As long as it will ring detectably in some mode when excited mechanically at the transmitter frequency it will probably work.

Regards,
LB

If your rod is anchored at the far end only, wouldn't you get the greatest mass movement of the telegraphing end?

And what is the possibility of using the crystal to modulate a larger mass - i.e. a lead ball?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Mac]
If your rod is anchored at the far end only, wouldn't you get the greatest mass movement of the telegraphing end?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
In addition to maximum mass displacement we also desire the minimum period for a complete cycle of mass movement.

But it's a good question. Which will give us better range and sensitivity - a larger mass moving slower, or a smaller mass moving faster?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Mac]
And what is the possibility of using the crystal to modulate a larger mass - i.e. a lead ball?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Wow. You lost me, there.

Regards,
LB

LB,

A crystal is reasonably solid and when it undergoes a voltage stress it expands or contracts (I know you kbow this I just posting the scenareo).

If a crystal rod is anchored at one end and its length canbe expanded or contracted, it has the ability to transmit substantial force before it shatters the crystal. If the telegraphing end is firmly attached to a larger mass it can induce motion in that mass.

I am unsure of the frequency dampening affect of doing that however.

OK, now I get it. You can actually buy peizo-positioners, crystal based doohickies that move other whatchyamacallits. They are popular in nanotech circles because of their ability to move relatively large objects by a fraction of an atomic diameter. Very precise, very repeatable. By stacking them in series you can get larger movements.

This is a po$$ibility, but I $u$pect that it might co$t more than we can afford in the $hort run. This is a refinement that will probably have to wait until we qualify for military funding. For now lets try to keep this to a zero dollar budget.

Does anyone have any info relative to this?

Regards,
LB

You can take my nickle (or a dime is it now) off the table and use it.

Actually I don't know the cost but it will amplify your signal over the mass of the crystal itself.


How about super gluing a mass to your cheap crystals?