0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 26/02/2019 20:34:51However little g too seems to vary with time at any one location, in a different way to the expected daily etc variation, but i am rusty on the details, i would have to re-read that stuff. I might later today.Did it occur to you that you should have read up on it before posting nonsense?And, re all that stuff about crystals.The frequencies do not change with orientation.You can't argue against reality.You predicted an effect.That effect didn't exist.Incidentally the capacitance is fixed, and the effect is small- almost all the "work" is done by the crystal.
However little g too seems to vary with time at any one location, in a different way to the expected daily etc variation, but i am rusty on the details, i would have to re-read that stuff. I might later today.
U will havta send Wolf your superior resonator. His suffers from problems with tilt. He tilted his by 5 mrad off vertical. But u say that your crystal oscillator merely laughs when tilted say 1000 mrad or even 3142 mrad.
the expected change in frequency will be reduced from a max possible of 1 in 240,000 to say 1 in 320,000 or something.
a tilt sensitivity of ≈ 6×10−17µrad−1
A simple single linear calibration factor for tilt is silly.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 01:10:40U will havta send Wolf your superior resonator. His suffers from problems with tilt. He tilted his by 5 mrad off vertical. But u say that your crystal oscillator merely laughs when tilted say 1000 mrad or even 3142 mrad. You seem to have forgotten that it's your calculation which is wrong. You said Quote from: mad aetherist on 12/02/2019 22:55:05 the expected change in frequency will be reduced from a max possible of 1 in 240,000 to say 1 in 320,000 or something.And now you are saying it's something like Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 01:10:40a tilt sensitivity of ≈ 6×10−17µrad−1 The angles I was talking about are of the order of 1 radian so the relative shift in frequency is about 1 in 10^11But you said it was 1 in 10^5It's really not my fault you got it wrong by a factor of a million or so.Why did you try to pretend that it was?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/03/2019 19:32:16Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 01:10:40U will havta send Wolf your superior resonator. His suffers from problems with tilt. He tilted his by 5 mrad off vertical. But u say that your crystal oscillator merely laughs when tilted say 1000 mrad or even 3142 mrad. You seem to have forgotten that it's your calculation which is wrong. You said Quote from: mad aetherist on 12/02/2019 22:55:05 the expected change in frequency will be reduced from a max possible of 1 in 240,000 to say 1 in 320,000 or something.And now you are saying it's something like Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 01:10:40a tilt sensitivity of ≈ 6×10−17µrad−1 The angles I was talking about are of the order of 1 radian so the relative shift in frequency is about 1 in 10^11But you said it was 1 in 10^5It's really not my fault you got it wrong by a factor of a million or so.Why did you try to pretend that it was?U ignore my point that u said that tilt can have no effect, when Wolf & Co found a tilt effect.U ignore my point that the Lorentzian LC effect on the thickness & hencely freq of lateral vibration of a tuning fork might be more than 10,000 times as strong as the weak LLC effect on length & hencely the freq of longitudinal vibration of a crystal.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 20:41:56Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/03/2019 19:32:16Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 01:10:40U will havta send Wolf your superior resonator. His suffers from problems with tilt. He tilted his by 5 mrad off vertical. But u say that your crystal oscillator merely laughs when tilted say 1000 mrad or even 3142 mrad. You seem to have forgotten that it's your calculation which is wrong. You said Quote from: mad aetherist on 12/02/2019 22:55:05 the expected change in frequency will be reduced from a max possible of 1 in 240,000 to say 1 in 320,000 or something.And now you are saying it's something like Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 01:10:40a tilt sensitivity of ≈ 6×10−17µrad−1 The angles I was talking about are of the order of 1 radian so the relative shift in frequency is about 1 in 10^11But you said it was 1 in 10^5It's really not my fault you got it wrong by a factor of a million or so.Why did you try to pretend that it was?U ignore my point that u said that tilt can have no effect, when Wolf & Co found a tilt effect.U ignore my point that the Lorentzian LC effect on the thickness & hencely freq of lateral vibration of a tuning fork might be more than 10,000 times as strong as the weak LLC effect on length & hencely the freq of longitudinal vibration of a crystal.I apologise for failing to time travel.You are right.I didn't take account of things you hadn't posted.Once again, why are you pretending that's my fault?Now stop being stupid and explain why nobody else has noticed these effects.
Now stop being stupid and explain why nobody else has noticed these effects.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/03/2019 21:16:29Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 20:41:56Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/03/2019 19:32:16Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 01:10:40U will havta send Wolf your superior resonator. His suffers from problems with tilt. He tilted his by 5 mrad off vertical. But u say that your crystal oscillator merely laughs when tilted say 1000 mrad or even 3142 mrad. You seem to have forgotten that it's your calculation which is wrong. You said Quote from: mad aetherist on 12/02/2019 22:55:05 the expected change in frequency will be reduced from a max possible of 1 in 240,000 to say 1 in 320,000 or something.And now you are saying it's something like Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 01:10:40a tilt sensitivity of ≈ 6×10−17µrad−1 The angles I was talking about are of the order of 1 radian so the relative shift in frequency is about 1 in 10^11But you said it was 1 in 10^5It's really not my fault you got it wrong by a factor of a million or so.Why did you try to pretend that it was?U ignore my point that u said that tilt can have no effect, when Wolf & Co found a tilt effect.U ignore my point that the Lorentzian LC effect on the thickness & hencely freq of lateral vibration of a tuning fork might be more than 10,000 times as strong as the weak LLC effect on length & hencely the freq of longitudinal vibration of a crystal.I apologise for failing to time travel.You are right.I didn't take account of things you hadn't posted.Once again, why are you pretending that's my fault?Now stop being stupid and explain why nobody else has noticed these effects.#43 Bored Chemist said..........I did the experiment. Reality doesn't agree with Mad aetherist. Now, given that there's exactly the same "reasoning" behind his prediction of a change in clock rate with angle and all his other ramblings, we can discount them too.#45 Bored Chemist said......I rotated it about two perpendicular axes. There was no change in the reading.Exp 2- well, I did the experiment near the Earth...How big a spinning wheel do you want?#56 Bored Chemist said.........Quote from: mad aetherist on 26/02/2019 20:34:51However little g too seems to vary with time at any one location, in a different way to the expected daily etc variation, but i am rusty on the details, i would have to re-read that stuff. I might later today.Did it occur to you that you should have read up on it before posting nonsense?And, re all that stuff about crystals.The frequencies do not change with orientation.You can't argue against reality.You predicted an effect.That effect didn't exist.Incidentally the capacitance is fixed, and the effect is small- almost all the "work" is done by the crystal.
And by memory i think many authors
Congratulations.You have highlighted reality in red.It doesn't agree with what you said would happen.Since you have now moved the goal posts by 6 orders of magnitude, the experiment which you agreed to no longer falls within the range of data you now want to look at.That's still not my fault because it's still down to you.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 21:37:05And by memory i think many authors Yes, but you think stuff that's not real.So we can safely ignore it.
I havnt mooved the goalposts.
A macro mechanical analysis of any macro clock frequency will confirm what i said or will deny what i said.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 21:55:31I havnt mooved the goalposts. Previously, you said an experiment would give a frequency change of about 1 in 250,000. Now you are saying it will be about a in 1,000,000,000,000. That's moving the goal posts.Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 21:55:31A macro mechanical analysis of any macro clock frequency will confirm what i said or will deny what i said. I did that experiment. It denied what you said. You can stop now.
tuning fork or solid crystal.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/03/2019 20:28:39tuning fork or solid crystal. Tuning fork oscillators are made from solid crystals, so your question makes no sense. http://www.nkg.com.hk/pdf/NKG-TIT_TuningForkCrystals.pdf
The crystals- whatever shape they are- are of the order of a few milimetres across and vibrate (in the particular case of the ones I used) 10,000,000 times a second.
So the macro ticking change in your oscillator might be as i said over 10,000 times less
Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/03/2019 22:41:30 So the macro ticking change in your oscillator might be as i said over 10,000 times lessHow unfortunate that you waited till it was too late before you said that.