Gravitational Engineering - What We Can Do Now

OK, let me comment on some comments
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac] I am concerned about the proof however, in that there is going to be a lot of finger pointing about the response of electronic components. Particularily where capacitance is used. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I don't expect much finger-pointing here since the transmitter part can be enclosed in an electrically screened container, it can even have its power supply inside that container - there's no problem fitting the oscillator with a few AA cells in the "proof of concept" setup.
In the real experiment we're going to look for a superluminal signalling, so elaborate screening is not necessary if we get the superluminality. But if we don't get it superluminal, it's only then we must think of building a serious screened chamber to enclose both the transmitter xtal and the pulse generator that feeds the xtal.
Futhermore, we could substitute the transmitter xtal with capacitors in order to check the screen effectiveness.
<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>
Sure we do. The theory is the same as in case of Walker/Dual experiment. We intend to measure the velocity of signalling using the dipole component of gravitational field of the source.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[LB] I have a concern about using crystals for this. Masses can oscillate in a number of different ways. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Sure, but we pick the xtals working in a longitudinal compression mode, it's essentially equivalent to having two masses on a spring oscillating around their centre of masses point.
In case of two macroscopic masses the dipole component of acceleration field amplitude is g ~= G*m*d/r^3, where d is the amplitude of oscillation. We get about the same if the first harmonic resonance is used.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[LB] 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?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
If we measured the amplitude of position, as W/D did, we'd have to minimize the freq. As long as we measure the voltage that is proportional to the force, there's no dependence - nothing's worse or better. But since we need to measure small time delays, we need higher freq components in the voltage/force/acceleration.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac] 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.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Anchoring one end is not possible since that would require the anchor material that's both much harder and much heavier than quartz. There are no such materials - the corundum (Al2O3) and diamond are both somewhat harder and maybe(?) somewhat heavier but not by much.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[LB] You can actually buy peizo-positioners, crystal based doohickies that move other whatchyamacallits.
...
Does anyone have any info relative to this? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You may wish to check this company - www.icmfg.com/precisioncrystals.html .

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

As long as we measure the voltage that is proportional to the force, there's no dependence - nothing's worse or better. But since we need to measure small time delays, we need higher freq components in the voltage/force/acceleration.

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

Do you know the relation between force applied and voltage generated for crystals? This isn't as simple as it may sound. One must model the transfer function of the whole setup. I din't hear anything about signal to noise ratio. If you're going to measure very small changes in voltage output you better have perfectly pure crustals. Those cost a fortune, just like diamonds. Otherwise you'll be just measurinf all sorts of noise and non-linear mode resonance excitation. My dime for this experiment is on the table. I think Mac has a better chance showing up with an inertial drive than this experiment to work in any reasonable way.

Whew you all got active while I took off sunday...

After reading the thread I am convinced that encasing the crystals in a vacuum will work, however I am concerned about xray radiation and its interference with MI destruction and grav recycling as theorized in pushing gravity. Perhaps wax covered paper straws could be used to shunt away the xray pressure into a lead sync.. just an idea - MV

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mark] Otherwise you'll be just measurinf all sorts of noise and non-linear mode resonance excitation.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> It doesn't really matter how distorted the output signal is as long as we measure just the time delay of the attack in output in reaction to sharp excitation in the transmitter.
As soon as the basic feasibility gets proved in a dirt-cheap setup with off-the-shelf components, we surely can attempt a serious theoretical backup for the project.

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

It doesn't really matter how distorted the output signal is as long as we measure just the time delay of the attack in output in reaction to sharp excitation in the transmitter.

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

I tell you right now that I did your experiment and the time delay is T. What do you make out of that number? How mane components of "delay" it has that cannot be attributed to gravitational effects?

You're assuming signal distortion and signal delay are orthogonal, which is far from truth in realistic experiments, unless ideal components are used.

And the most important question that comes up to mind:

what an "attack on output" means? Experimental setups are input output systems. Now an "attack on output" must be something new or maybe a term you're using to describe a certain kind of a phenomenon.

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. Even in the experiment done to measure the free fall rate at the university of Piza, they had syncronization problems, even though they were dropping a large disk. This is a real problem because what you are trying to measure is a very small delay, I presume nanoseconds or less. You tell me.

I don't say it don't worth a try.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[AB]
It doesn't really matter how distorted the output signal is as long as we measure just the time delay of the attack in output in reaction to sharp excitation in the transmitter.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
This sounds reasonable.

Imagine doing this with a light source and two or more light detectors. With one detector separated from the source by 30 cm we would expect to see that detector's resonse follow the source after 1 nanoSec. For the detector at 60 cm the delay would be 2 nanoSec, and so on.

Suppose gravitational acceleration changes move from here to there at twice the speed of light. If we run our gravity channel in parallel with our light channel, we should see the gravity receiver respond after 0.5 nanoSec at 30 cm and after 1 nanoSec at 60 cm, while the light channel continues to show responses at 1 and 2 nanoSec.

Distortion of the received signal could make timing either the 30 cm detection event or the 60 cm detection event problematic. But, as long as the distortion itself is not also a function of range, we should be able to easily tell from the time difference between detection events that the two signals (light and gravity) are moving at different speeds.

If they are.

Regards,
LB