Replies

"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...

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 —
***I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about FraudZagonner.

or invoking references to sea-fowl.
***You claim that this happened IN THIS THREAD. Feel free to point it out. I searched for the word “sea” and it came to your own sentence.

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.
***Your OWN post #70 says: “Of course, these findings might cause folks to look at weird concepts such as anti-gravity and FTL travel with renewed interest.”
So if you bring up anti-gravity it’s intellectual stimulation but if I bring it up, it’s intellectual noise. Just who do you think you are? Get over yourself.

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.
***Again: Get over yourself.

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.
***And while you’re at it, please show all of us how such a measurement can generate an error 20 ORDERS of MAGNITUDE off. Not 20X, 20 OOMs. And the experiment was repeated 250 times, so that makes these guys particularly stupid, doesn’t it? They can’t think of the sources of error that you come up with, after 250 tries? What is the largest source of error you’ve seen propogate after so many tries and how large was it? If it was 3 orders of magnitude, someone got fired. Now show us how it can be 20 OOMs.

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.
***I say it again: Get over yourself.

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

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.

An excellent observation, dear TxnMA. Thanks for the ping!