Charles,
I believe Brett is probably right, that piezoelectric sensors looking =
for 'snap, crackle, and pop' in the spring are not likely to be sensitive e=
nough to detect imperfection changes at the level where Brett wants to im=
prove performance. Of course acoustic emission methods have become quite u=
seful as a part of nondestructive testing methods.
Brett,
It is clear that you retain a level of skepticism concerning my postulates;=
and I commend you for that. Such an attitude is the proper prerequisite f=
or sound scientific progress. I do want to point out that there is a prepo=
nderance of evidence to suggest that some careful tests are indeed called f=
or. I have spent much of my career demonstrating the fact (in my mind, ind=
isputable) that at low energies of the motion of your inertial mass (the pl=
ace of your present greatest interest) what causes your system to dampen, i=
f it were not imposed by your feedback network-derives from defect structur=
e dynamics. I spent a lot of time before I could win Erhard W. to my way o=
f thinking on this matter; but I think he has come around; since at dinner =
during the broadband conference he told me "I thought you were crazy". He=
may still think I am crazy to a degree, and maybe rightfully so. What he =
and I have now both familiarized ourselves with is a paper that never shou=
ld have been nearly lost to science history. It evidently got misplaced fr=
om the mainstream in the time of the 'thundering herd' of those who started=
looking at quantum mechanics in the early part of the 20th century. I'm t=
alking about a paper by Kimball and Lovell in 1927; i.e., ``Internal fricti=
on in solids'', Phys. Rev. 30, 948-959 (1927).
They performed a simple, elegant experiment in which it was discovered that=
internal friction possesses a universal form-one that I've spent much of m=
y career trying, mostly without success, to understand from first principle=
s-always the loftiest goal of physics.
So here is the 'clincher'. If the damping is indeed from defects, the =
quintessential question is the following: "Are the defect consequences too=
small to be of any concern to the operation of a seismograph?" Far too ma=
ny of my numerous pendulum experiments (maybe in number the greatest of any=
body in history) give me great skepticism for the position held by so many-=
- that the answer to that question is yes, they are not important. Well, I=
will believe that when there is viable experimental evidence to stake a cl=
aim in it!
I want also to point out that there is ancilary evidence to support my=
position from LIGO. I tried to convince key figure Kip Thorne of this ye=
ars ago, after I saw his part in the translation of a book by the Russian p=
hysicist Vladimer Braginsky, concerned with the measurement of 'weak (mecha=
nical) forces in physics'. It was only after one of Kip's understudies at =
Cal Tech, named Ric Desalvo attended the broadband conference-did I begin t=
o appreciate just how formidable is the challenge of detecting gravitationa=
l waves, also because of defect properties of their springs. Their challen=
ge is the antithesis of yours. They want to see no seismic activities, whi=
le you want to see all of them (if either goal were in fact possible). I s=
erved as a referee for one of their papers.
titled "Study of Quality Factor and Hysteresis Associated with the State-of=
-the-art Passive
Seismic Isolation System for Gravitational Wave Interferometric Detectors"
When I asked the editor's secretary how he found me to request that I do so=
, she said "because of my internet publications". By the way, my energy-ba=
sed damping theory (detailed in Clarence de Silva's handbooks) describes pe=
rfectly one of their figures that was treated by their team semi-empiricall=
y. This is just one more example of the potential importance of dislocatio=
ns to 'low and slow' seismometer performance.
Randall
Charles,
I believe Brett is pro=
bably right, that piezoelectric sensors looking for ‘snap, crackle, a=
nd pop’ in the spring are not likely to be sensitive enough to =
detect imperfection changes at the level where Brett wants to improve=
performance. Of course acoustic emission methods have become quite u=
seful as a part of nondestructive testing methods.
Brett,
I=
t is clear that you retain a level of skepticism concerning my postulates; =
and I commend you for that. Such an attitude is the proper prerequisi=
te for sound scientific progress. I do want to point out that there i=
s a preponderance of evidence to suggest that some careful tests are indeed=
called for. I have spent much of my career demonstrating the fact (i=
n my mind, indisputable) that at low energies of the motion of your inertia=
l mass (the place of your present greatest interest) what causes your syste=
m to dampen, if it were not imposed by your feedback network—derives =
from defect structure dynamics. I spent a lot of time before I could =
win Erhard W. to my way of thinking on this matter; but I think he has come=
around; since at dinner during the broadband conference he told me “=
I thought you were crazy”. He may still think I am crazy =
to a degree, and maybe rightfully so. What he and I have now both&nbs=
p; familiarized ourselves with is a paper that never should have been nearl=
y lost to science history. It evidently got misplaced from the mainst=
ream in the time of the ‘thundering herd’ of those who started =
looking at quantum mechanics in the early part of the 20th centu=
ry. I’m talking about a paper by Kimball and Lovell in 1927; i.=
e., ``Internal friction in solids'', Phys. Rev. 30, 948-959 (1927).
They performed a simple, elegant experiment in which it was discovered tha=
t internal friction possesses a universal form—one that I’ve sp=
ent much of my career trying, mostly without success, to understand from fi=
rst principles—always the loftiest goal of physics.
&nbs=
p; So here is the ‘clincher’. If the damping i=
s indeed from defects, the quintessential question is the following: =
“Are the defect consequences too small to be of any concern to the op=
eration of a seismograph?” Far too many of my numerous pendulum=
experiments (maybe in number the greatest of anybody in history) give me g=
reat skepticism for the position held by so many-- that the answer to that =
question is yes, they are not important. Well, I will believe that wh=
en there is viable experimental evidence to stake a claim in it!
&nb=
sp; I want also to point out that there is ancilary =
evidence to support my position from LIGO. I tried to convince =
key figure Kip Thorne of this years ago, after I saw his part in the transl=
ation of a book by the Russian physicist Vladimer Braginsky, concerned with=
the measurement of ‘weak (mechanical) forces in physics’. =
; It was only after one of Kip’s understudies at Cal Tech, named Ric =
Desalvo attended the broadband conference—did I begin to appreciate j=
ust how formidable is the challenge of detecting gravitational waves, also =
because of defect properties of their springs. Their challenge is the=
antithesis of yours. They want to see no seismic activities, while y=
ou want to see all of them (if either goal were in fact possible). I =
served as a referee for one of their papers.
titled “Study of Quality =
Factor and Hysteresis Associated with the State-of-the-art Passiv=
e<=
o:p>
Seismic Isolation System for Gravitational=
Wave Interferometric Detectors”
When I asked the editor̵=
7;s secretary how he found me to request that I do so, she said “beca=
use of my internet publications”. By the way, my energy-based d=
amping theory (detailed in Clarence de Silva’s handbooks) describes p=
erfectly one of their figures that was treated by their team semi-empirical=
ly. This is just one more example of the potential importance of disl=
ocations to ‘low and slow’ seismometer performance.
&n=
bsp; Randall
=