Can you say, “spuriously-generated [false] accelerometer signals”?
***I’ve never seen any instrument generate 20 orders of magnitude (OOM) of error. Maybe 1 OOM, that’s about it. And these guys did the experiment 250 times. That’s a lot of times repeating the same 20 OOM error.
Why is it that scientists have so much trouble looking into something so blatantly erroneous but so little trouble acting like a-h’s? It is a mystery without end.
In this thread, the bigger mystery is why you, FRiend Kevmo, cannot participate in a collegial discussion of technical substance (as in my #75) without resorting to sphincter-based vituperation -- or invoking references to sea-fowl.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would think that discussion of the complexities of exploring the difficulty of obtaining valid measurements using hypersensitive instruments within an environment with the possibilities of creating out-of-scale electromagnetic (and possibly mechanical) interfering signals is sufficiently challenging. IOW, the subject is sufficiently complex and challenging in itself -- without introducing intellectual noise by resorting to the non sequitur of citing things such as "anti-gravity" patents.
OTOH, simply providing a link to actual publications of the research in question, for example, would have had the opposite, and beneficial, effect on this discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FYI, I spent the latter portion of my career researching, designing, fabricating, developing, packaging and testing micromechanical sensors of the type pictured. My choice of the specific microsensor illustration I used was quite deliberate.
In fact, I intend to use that illustration (with suitable, illustrative enhancments) here to enhance further discusions of possible sources of error in the cited measurements -- and to review some steps that I, as a researcher ,would take to identify, characterize, and eliminate or minimize those potential sources of measurement error.
Since I intend to include reasoning individuals in my further discussion, some of whom you obviously view with scatological disdain, I will not add to your discomfort by pinging you to my forthcoming discussions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the rest of us, back to the technicaldiscussion of the measurements cited and some anticipated difficulties thereof...
First of all, the accelerometer structure depicted in #75, is described in a patent abstract at
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6683358.html
Please bear with me while I do some explanatory graphics work on the above illustration -- as a tool for further dixcussion of potential measurement errors...