Sy,
You just got a mention of an article you did about the F4 amplifier a few years ago. It is on The Audio Voice. I just got an email and saw the article with your name on it.
You just got a mention of an article you did about the F4 amplifier a few years ago. It is on The Audio Voice. I just got an email and saw the article with your name on it.
Letsee - an atom's nucleus is an average of 8 x 10E-15 meters in diamter, and the measurement was made over 4 x 10E+3 meters. Measurement was down by 3.2 x 10E+19 or about 390 dB.
Here's the BS claim: In dB, measurement was about 390 dB down, which is in dB, only about "3 times" the THD in a modern resistor.
Last edited:
A nucleus is about 10E-12m A proton is 10E-15. Ligo can measure 10E-19m accoring to the press release!
Tunnels are 4x10E+3 so light goes both ways so we are talking order of 10^22
What's not clear is how many times the beam goes up and down and how that changes things. Does not affect awesomeness!
That claim fails a simple self-consistency check. The nucleus of a Hydrogen atom is a proton, so their dimension is obviously the same.
The noise level in the current LIGO is given here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Depending on various parameters, it is given as < 10E-22.
The Wikipedia article also contains that information:
"After an equivalent of approximately 75 trips down the 4 km length to the far mirrors and back again..."
Last edited:
It's nice that Weiss, Thorne, and Drever are around to see this too.
Things have come a long way. I recall when a physicist friend visited Drever's lab at Caltech many years ago, and noticed that he was using some children's toys made out of a particularly capable elastomer material to suspend some of the apparatus.
I think you guys are suffering from a lack of a sense of humor. My favorite comment so far was basically "They are faking it, the Lord didn't create the universe that long ago..."
You estimated 10E-19. I estimated 10E-22.
Lets split the difference and call it 'mind bogglingly accurate'
Probably the reprint of my preamp article in AudioXpress. They've been posting a lot of archived stuff online recently, a very nice resource.
Yes, I've seen the "proofs" of the flaws in carbon dating even though they don't use it for dinosaurs. I don't quite know what you are referring to at the moment. Oh I forgot, we don't communicate. 🙂
Can't resist the story of a friend who was challenged to produce evidence of prior art in a patent dispute.
He produced paper and pencil notes, and the opposing counsel said "Well, you could have written them yesterday."
No, it was argued, because the technique of carbon dating will reveal that the date of origin was earlier.
The suit was dropped.
He produced paper and pencil notes, and the opposing counsel said "Well, you could have written them yesterday."
No, it was argued, because the technique of carbon dating will reveal that the date of origin was earlier.
The suit was dropped.
Did I ever mention the patent attorney who's last name was Prior and named his son Art?
So much for estimates.
If you study this reference,
the correct, best evidence supported judgement at this time appears to be: "Barely accurate enough to get the job done". ;-)
My mind is not boggled - I'm wondering what they are going to do to get the SNR up so that reliable measurements are possible at more than just 100 Hz.
This reminds me of the days (mid-late 1960s) when a SOTA THD analyzer had 0.1% FS as its best range. It turns out that they were "Barely accurate enough to get the job done". E.g: HP 333-334.
If getting your head around what is perhaps the greatest technical feat of the 21st century doesn't give a few 'how the hell did they do that' moments fine. For us mere mortals there is a lot of boggling. That has pushed SOTA in almost every discipline.
I must admit I quite often have those "how do they do that" moments, spent last week at SRL, crazy stuff... This though is out of this world🙂
I still can't visualise the machine that grinds the flutes into a 0.5mm diameter drill blank.
Any one got any links?
Any one got any links?
In my life there have been decades of "How the hell did they do that" moments - at least several a year at times, for which I was obliged to understand how, because keeping those physical realizations of how they did it was my job.
Note, I'm fully aware about the huge difference between keeping a developed technology working, and inventing it in the first place.
I'm not special, I just have had the good fortune to be in the right time, at the right place, and sometimes the right person, if that sort of thing floats your boat.
It floated, and still floats my boat! ;-)
A price has to be paid to be a right person.
Pushing the SOTA happens all the time.
I've already spent some time thinking about what it would take to make this experiment into something that could be done in a University Physics lab.
First they got to get the broadband SNR of the current implementation up quite a bit, because what they have working is too easy to dismiss as a special case that may be due to something else.
Last edited:
Carbon dating is pretty accurate for relatively recent stuff. The alleged debunking is about how uncertain it becomes, relates to the distant past. As has already been pointed out, alternative methodologies that are better for the distant past have been developed.
Probably a variation on the devices that sharpen them:
This device is speced to sharpen drills down to 0.01" which if my math is right is about 0.25 mm.
Srd # dg-80-s ultra precise micro drill grinder
Compared to more ordinary but similar tools, the microscope, the device for detecting when the drill is actually in contact with the grinding wheel, and the heavy, precise construction are obvious enhancements for the task.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.