Chris,
The reason I wouldn't discount what Bob mentions about diamond and sil=
icon is the following.
One of my most significant instruments is described by the article "Moderni=
zed conventional pendulum seismometer"
online at http://physics.mercer.edu/hpage/rpend.html
The pendulum axis was one involving two diamond 'points' resting on sap=
phire. Each point was taken from a phono-cartridge stylus of the type that=
was so common to high fidelity music systems in the days of 33 rpm stereo =
records. Incidentally (to you young folks who have never seen such things)=
, the sensor of this cartridge was of 'Faraday Law' type; i.e., magnet/coil=
for which the output voltage depends on the time rate of change of magneti=
c flux, just like the sensor many of you use (whether a geophone or otherwi=
se). Faraday was one of the greatest (mostly self-trained) experimentalist=
s who ever lived.
The reason I chose diamond is because clockmakers have for many decad=
es used 'jeweled bearings. Yes, I know that our need is to reduce 'rolling=
' friction as opposed to 'sliding' friction of a bearing. But it is also t=
rue that the makers of the best 'balances' discovered the same thing as the=
clockmakers--what I mentioned in a previous mailing-the harder the materia=
ls that 'contact' each other, the better from the standpoint of friction. =
Much of my physics career has been devoted to studies of friction (mostly o=
f 'internal type' and devoted to issues such as the only article for which =
I was paid to write, titled "Friction at the mesoscale", published by Conte=
mporary Physics, located in London). Perhaps the most remarkable thing I h=
ave pondered as the result of these studies-is that energy loss at contacti=
ng surfaces (which involves dislocation dynamics) is probably not a great d=
eal different (insofar as the first principal physics involving dislocation=
s is concerned) between a roller bearing and a bushing. In my paper title=
d "Mesoscale quantization and self-organized stability" at
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506143 I have spoken to the (mostly unstudie=
d) physics of rolling friction.
And Bob, I am glad to hear you recommend that silicon might be worthy =
of more experimentation by the amateur world. My colleague Matt Marone, wh=
o was first to suggest that I get involved with amateur seismologists, gave=
me some silicon wafers years ago to 'play around with'. If you look at th=
e above mentioned pendulum, you will see that I used a piece of one of them=
(readily fashioned by scribing and then breaking into pieces along princip=
al axis (cleavage) directions) to make the small front surface mirror with =
which (by means of the classic optical lever method) I calibrated my instru=
ment using a HeNe laser. I created this instrument in response to a reques=
t by Jim Shirley at Jet Propulsion Laboratory. By way of the internet he h=
ad learned of my extensive research involving pendulums, and in his email a=
sked me to consider doing some experiments of the type that were first perf=
ormed by the great Lord Kelvin, along with his 'sidekick' George Darwin ( s=
on of the famous Charles) more than a century ago. For reason of the 'gre=
at equalizers' of modern technology (such as the computer) we hoped to brea=
k through 'show-stoppers' of complexity type that had stymied our predecess=
ors-as they were trying to better understand the influence of the moon on o=
ur planet. Alas, as I had suspected could prove true-the physics of the ma=
tter continued to be more difficult than might be solved by the lesser of m=
ere mortals. Anybody who believes that everything of significance concerni=
ng the moon's influence on Earth is already known in exquisite detail is wa=
lking in a place of great naivete.
In just the last two years , partly because the problem first studied =
in detail more than a century ago had also defeated us, I began to think ab=
out the simplest features of its theoretical foundation; i.e., the idealize=
d (crustal) tidal force that exists between components of a waterless plan=
et/moon system, each of which is perfectly spherical before interacting. =
Although Isaac Newton was first to address this problem, and though you mig=
ht think that everything worthwhile concerning it must have been learned lo=
ng ago-I was astonished by what two of my students and I discovered; and wh=
ich is documented in our paper titled "Tidal force asymmetry". The single=
place it has been published is http://physics.mercer.edu/hpage/tidal%20asy=
mmetry/asymmetry.html
because our attempt to get it placed on arxiv was futile. Their rejection =
of this our paper was completely unexpected, since I had in carte blanche m=
anner (with nary a 'bump in the road') published more than 40 papers there,=
starting many years earlier. One of my very competent colleagues, who re=
ad this paper carefully to see if he could find anything at all wrong with =
it-indicated his expectation that something so profoundly simple and import=
ant (and at the same time not discussed anywhere (if at all) to the extent =
it should be)-could be cause for great embarrassment in some quarters. Am=
ong other things, this paper speaks much more directly to the nature of how=
comet ShoeMaker-Levy 9 became a 'string of pearls' than is true of any of =
the conventional (overly-simplified textbook) descriptions that you will fi=
nd. Actually, I haven't found any 'conventional tidal force' descriptions=
that provide a detailed description of the breakup-physics of this comet b=
y Jupiter (some of whose impacts I personally watched through our Telescope=
at Texas Tech University in 1994). Everybody just indicates that the stro=
ng tidal force of Jupiter caused the 'dirty snowball (Whipple's description=
of a comet) to be broken into pieces at the times of peri-Jove passage (pl=
aces of closest approach). For example, look at one of the pictures shown =
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit
At the very close separation distance implied for this picture, the hi=
ghly strained comet is shown to be a highly symmetric prolate spheroid. In=
our paper we have performed straightforward calculations to show that from=
the gravitational theory given to us by Newton this could not be true. At=
this spacing there has to be asymmetry that will influence how the fragmen=
ts came to be.
By the way: the 'modernized conventional pendulum' was the primary '=
driver' behind my creation of the VolksMeter.
Randall
Chris,
The reason I wouldn̵=
7;t discount what Bob mentions about diamond and silicon is the following.<=
o:p>
One of my most significant instruments i=
s described by the article “Modernized conventional pendulum seismome=
ter”
online at http://physics.mercer.edu/hpage/rpend.h=
tml
The pendulum =
axis was one involving two diamond ‘points’ resting on sapphire=
.. Each point was taken from a phono-cartridge stylus of the type that=
was so common to high fidelity music systems in the days of 33 rpm stereo =
records. Incidentally (to you young folks who have never seen such th=
ings), the sensor of this cartridge was of ‘Faraday Law’ type; =
i.e., magnet/coil for which the output voltage depends on the time rate of =
change of magnetic flux, just like the sensor many of you use (whether a ge=
ophone or otherwise). Faraday was one of the greatest (mostly self-tr=
ained) experimentalists who ever lived.
The reason I chose diamond is be=
cause clockmakers have for many decades used ‘jeweled bearings. =
Yes, I know that our need is to reduce ‘rolling’ friction as o=
pposed to ‘sliding’ friction of a bearing. But it is also=
true that the makers of the best ‘balances’ discovered the sam=
e thing as the clockmakers--what I mentioned in a previous mailing—th=
e harder the materials that ‘contact’ each other, the better fr=
om the standpoint of friction. Much of my physics career has been dev=
oted to studies of friction (mostly of ‘internal type’ and devo=
ted to issues such as the only article for which I was paid to write, title=
d “Friction at the mesoscale”, published by Contemporary Physic=
s, located in London). Perhaps the most remarkable thing I have ponde=
red as the result of these studies—is that energy loss at contacting =
surfaces (which involves dislocation dynamics) is probably not a great deal=
different (insofar as the first principal physics involving dislocations i=
s concerned) between a roller bearing and a bushing. In my pape=
r titled “Mesoscale quantization and self-organized stability” =
at
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506143 I have spoken to=
the (mostly unstudied) physics of rolling friction.
And Bob, I am glad to hear you recomm=
end that silicon might be worthy of more experimentation by the amateur wor=
ld. My colleague Matt Marone, who was first to suggest that I get inv=
olved with amateur seismologists, gave me some silicon wafers years ago to =
‘play around with’. If you look at the above mentioned pe=
ndulum, you will see that I used a piece of one of them (readily fashioned =
by scribing and then breaking into pieces along principal axis (cleavage) d=
irections) to make the small front surface mirror with which (by means of t=
he classic optical lever method) I calibrated my instrument using a HeNe la=
ser. I created this instrument in response to a request by Jim Shirle=
y at Jet Propulsion Laboratory. By way of the internet he had learned=
of my extensive research involving pendulums, and in his email asked me to=
consider doing some experiments of the type that were first performed by t=
he great Lord Kelvin, along with his ‘sidekick’ George Darwin (=
son of the famous Charles) more than a century ago. For reason=
of the ‘great equalizers’ of modern technology (such as the co=
mputer) we hoped to break through ‘show-stoppers’ of complexity=
type that had stymied our predecessors—as they were trying to better=
understand the influence of the moon on our planet. Alas, as I had s=
uspected could prove true—the physics of the matter continued to be m=
ore difficult than might be solved by the lesser of mere mortals. Any=
body who believes that everything of significance concerning the moon’=
;s influence on Earth is already known in exquisite detail is walking in a =
place of great naivete.
&nb=
sp; In just the last two years , partly because the proble=
m first studied in detail more than a century ago had also defeated us, I b=
egan to think about the simplest features of its theoretical foundation; i.=
e., the idealized (crustal) tidal force that exists between components of &=
nbsp;a waterless planet/moon system, each of which is perfectly spherical b=
efore interacting. Although Isaac Newton was first to address t=
his problem, and though you might think that everything worthwhile concerni=
ng it must have been learned long ago—I was astonished by what two of=
my students and I discovered; and which is documented in our paper titled =
“Tidal force asymmetry”. The single place it has be=
en published is http://physics.mercer.edu/hpage/tidal%20asymmetry/asymmet=
ry.html
because our attempt to get i=
t placed on arxiv was futile. Their rejection of this our paper was c=
ompletely unexpected, since I had in carte blanche manner (with nary a R=
16;bump in the road’) published more than 40 papers there, starting m=
any years earlier. One of my very competent colleagues, who rea=
d this paper carefully to see if he could find anything at all wrong with i=
t—indicated his expectation that something so profoundly simple and i=
mportant (and at the same time not discussed anywhere (if at all) to the ex=
tent it should be)—could be cause for great embarrassment in some qua=
rters. Among other things, this paper speaks much more directly=
to the nature of how comet ShoeMaker-Levy 9 became a ‘string of pear=
ls’ than is true of any of the conventional (overly-simplified textbo=
ok) descriptions that you will find. Actually, I haven’t =
found any ‘conventional tidal force’ descriptions that provide =
a detailed description of the breakup-physics of this comet by Jupiter (som=
e of whose impacts I personally watched through our Telescope at Texas Tech=
University in 1994). Everybody just indicates that the strong tidal =
force of Jupiter caused the ‘dirty snowball (Whipple’s descript=
ion of a comet) to be broken into pieces at the times of peri-Jove passage =
(places of closest approach). For example, look at one of the picture=
s shown at http://en.w=
ikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit
=
At the very close separation distance implied for this picture=
, the highly strained comet is shown to be a highly symmetric prolate=
spheroid. In our paper we have performed straightforward calculation=
s to show that from the gravitational theory given to us by Newton this cou=
ld not be true. At this spacing there has to be asymmetry that will i=
nfluence how the fragments came to be.
By the way: the ‘modernized=
conventional pendulum’ was the primary ‘driver’ be=
hind my creation of the VolksMeter.
Ran=
dall
<=
/html>=