Carlos,
I said I would take a look at Weber bars and resonant mass detectors. I have not really looked at them since I met Joe. By the time I met Robert Forward, that was old news.
I can see with just a quick look that mounting anything on the surface is the wrong way to go. It was then, and it is now. There are plenty of non-contact methods available. The geopotential of the earth is at something like 2160x2160 spherical harmonic, and there are more compact ways to track surface modes and internal modes.
Let me not pre-judge, I am just seeing the periphery. I can tell a lot from the way you handle amplification, sampling rate and bit size, and data handling from the sensor, what you can get out of any sensor. Forward's dissertation reminds me of Joe's difficulties with using contact sensors.
I can simply locate every paper and group and read it all, work through all the assumptions and equations. but I would rather not have to go that far back. If you can point me to the specifics of the amplifiers and ADCs you are using, I can work from first principles and do the rest. I am correct that you are working on Schenberg? It does not matter, it depends on your handling of the electrical signals what you can get from any analog sensor - a mass, an antenna, a coil, a semiconductor, a plasma, whatever.
You are wrong to try for distant black holes as a direct potential detector, before checking the response as a gravimeter for closer and verifiable sources. So all that 10^-20 stuff is misleading. You have to build it step by step, calibrating at all stages. I am not seeing that kind of paper, though, so have you calibrated it on seismic waves? Or any of the earth-based signals? I might be jumping the gun, and wrong to be thinking that has not been done. But I will be reading to fill in things, hoping to hear some clues and specifics from you.
Is there a noise budget analysis somewhere. I can tell a lot by the response to electromagnetic and acoustic noises.
Why is everyone working alone? The Internet information on resonant mass detectors is terse and incomplete. How can you get anything done? Aren't you tired of waiting?
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Dear Richard Collins,
sorry, I am not Carlos,
but nevertheless for Mario Schenberg transducers you may have a look at the following papers:
Article Transducers for the Brazilian gravitational wave detector 'M...
Article High sensitivity niobium parametric transducer for the Mario...
Article Progress report on the development of a very high sensitivit...
and the references therein.
Good luck
Thank you. Things are a bit spread out. Sorry for the confusion on names. I have a hard time reading pastel colors and RG does not give me high contrast large text.
Do you happen to know if anyone has considered using this type of detector for earth and solar system sources? The methods are the same except with local sources one can use time of flight methods for imaging.
I read over those papers rather quickly. It seems like taking the hard way to use machined masses and special materials and cryogenics. I don't have those resources, so I use statistical methods and lots of low cost sensors and lots of measurements. If I were doing a sphere, I would image the whole surface and not bother with physical attached sensors. You can scribe the surface for useful targets, or just rough it and use speckles. Or just search the surface for useful defects as reference points.
I have been looking at caustic surfaces and defects that give very sensitive large changes for very small displacements. There are x-ray sources and methods to get the size down to a reasonable level. And then techniques for atomic scale monitoring. I would use them, since they are low cost. And then cantilevers for noncontact methods - which I think you need - can be operated at high eigenodes for more sensitivity.
I work at room temperature, for cost, and because that gives a LOT more data on the normal modes of the sensor (whether masses or circuits or circuit components). If you know the modes very precisely, then exceptions are easier to see. I guess I am biased toward methods that use lots of data. And where the systems are affordable by many countries and groups. I would rather have ten thousand good detectors that can work together to many purposes, providing training and real data to many, than one or two expensive detectors that can only see one or two things, are nearly impossible to modify or simplify, are impossible to completely verify, and do not share. And I am biased to helping people know more about the earth and solar system, than distant things.
With what they have already, Mario Schenberg could look at the earth and sun, develop and calibrate using those, improve and simplify, do the earths interior and atmosphere and oceans, then go deeper and finer grained, scan the whole sky, check the planets, and then check the brightest regions in the sky. Just a suggestion. LOL!
I will try to look at what methods might give MS the same resolution with no contact. And include the gradient measurements as well for local sources.
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medical Science Nursing
- Dissertations