[Bored chemist]

The observer at the station can somehow see a ray of light emitted in the carriage & watches its progress & can see when an observer in the carriage sees the ray. 

You do realise that, in a thought experiment, it doesn't matter if something is actually possible or not, don't you?
So the point isn't that the passenger actually can see the light in progress, but that IF he could see it ...

[mad aetherist (OP)]

The observer at the station can somehow see a ray of light emitted in the carriage & watches its progress & can see when an observer in the carriage sees the ray.

You do realise that, in a thought experiment, it doesn't matter if something is actually possible or not, don't you? So the point isn't that the passenger actually can see the light in progress, but that IF he could see it ...

Yes i am happy with that, u win this time.
Thought experiment -- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A thought experiment (German: Gedankenexperiment,[1] Gedanken-Experiment,[2] or Gedankenerfahrung[3]) considers some hypothesis, theory,[4] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may not be possible to perform it, and even if it could be performed, there need not be an intention to perform it.

The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question:
"A thought experiment is a device with which one performs an intentional, structured process of intellectual deliberation in order to speculate, within a specifiable problem domain, about potential consequents (or antecedents) for a designated antecedent (or consequent)" (Yeates, 2004, p. 150).
Examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

But it appears to me that all theory involves a thort-X.  In the case of ticking dilation there have been say 10 actual experiments that support LTD.  Only 3 of these involve an Einsteinian balance clock (ie at a macro scale)(DePalma)(Podkletnov)(Alan Calverd).  The remainder involve em effects at an atomic scale (ie using atomic clocks)(say 3 of the Hafele-Keating kind)(say 4 of the mountain top kind)(ignoring the many GPS atomic clock findings).

Remember that FitzGerald & Lorentz & Co used em considerations at an atomic & molecular level to posit LLC, & then jumped ahead & immediately accepted that thems kinds of micro effects must create LTD at all scales.

I am beginning to think that Einstein (& Lorentz) was wrong, i reckon that balance clocks (macro clocks) do not suffer a simple LTD.  Whereas praps (micro clocks) atomic clocks do.  I will have a think.
It means that biological aging probly suffers LTD pretty much according to gamma.  But macro tickings (based on macro inertia & springs & vibrations etc) are affected by LLC in very complicated ways, depending on orientation, ie depending on the velocity of the aetherwind, whereas ordinary simple LTD depends merely on the speed of the aetherwind.

When i have a look into all of this stuff i will of course be mindfull of the fact that LLC is not proven, it might be due to a length contraction, but i think that it might be due to a width expansion, or to a shape change based on a bit of both.  This will make my analysis difficult, but it will open up a lot more possibilities.  I will be back.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

In #8 notice that DePalma doesnt mention aether even tho he mentions aether in other sections of his articles.  In #8 he doesnt mention aetherwind, nor Lorentz Ticking Dilation.
It is interesting that he places the watch on the face of the clock.
The electric clock is supposedly not affected by the spinning disc, alltho he doesnt actually say that. The clock of course ticks in response to the frequency of the electricity, & that frequency is generated by the power company at a distant location.
DePalma says that the ticking dilation of the Accutron tuning fork watch depends on orientation, ie parallel to axis has less effect than perpendicular to axis. This smells fishy.  Orientation shouldnt make a difference, according to my centrifuging of aether theory & its effect on the aetherwind & based on the standard parameters of the oldendays Lorentz Ticking Dilation equation for gamma where V is the aetherwind (kmps). The ticking dilation is affected by the speed of the aetherwind not the velocity.  Lorentz Length Contraction of the tuning fork is of course affected by velocity, ie orientation of tuning fork makes a difference to the fork's actual length.  But i will think some more re this.

Ok i had a think.  I am starting to think that ticking dilation is more complex than i thort.  Mightbe the kind of clock has an effect on LTD. Still thinking.  I will be back.

Most of us accept that LLC applies to the size & shape of objects at micro scales & macro scales, as per the theory (ie due to the effect of velocity on the electro forces in & tween atoms), & most of us accept that LTD applies to atomic clocks & happenings at a micro scale. 

But i now reckon that LTD doesnt apply to macro happenings (eg balance clocks, tuning forks, pendulums, & hour-glasses).  I now reckon that these suffer a TD of a different kind.

But thats only a half of it.  I now reckon that all macro clocks are affected by the velocity of the aetherwind not the speed of the wind.  The traditional concept of  LTD is that the ticking dilation is related to the speed of the aetherwind & that orientation doesnt matter, but i reckon that orientation is critical.
I will explain this in a future posting. See #25.

[Paradigmer]

Massless things are not affected by centrifugal forces.You can't "centrifuge" them.

Nope. As a matter of fact, it was scientifically proven in repeatable experiments that light can stir condensate of sodium atoms, and cause quantized vortices to manifest, and they definitely centrifuge.

Despite a N prize was awarded, the relevant authority still denounce Bose-Einstein Condensate as a state of matter, cited it defies the laws of thermodynamics.

I believe this got Richard Feynman rolling over in his grave: “Looking back at the worst times, it always seems that they were times in which there were people who believed with absolute faith and absolute dogmatism in something. And they were so serious in this matter that they insisted that the rest of the world agree with them. And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent with their own beliefs in order to maintain that what they said was true.”

We are still in a worst time.

[Bored chemist]

Nope. As a matter of fact, it was scientifically proven in repeatable experiments that light can stir condensate of sodium atoms, and cause quantized vortices to manifest, and they definitely centrifuge.

It may have escaped your notice, but sodium atoms have mass

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Further to my #22.   I now calculate the macro ticking dilation for a tuning fork.
The velocity of the aetherwind blowing throo a tuning fork contracts the dimension parallel to the wind by the LLC gamma where gamma is (1-VV/cc)^0.5.   For 500 kmps gamma is 0.999 998 609.
The equation for the frequency of a tuning fork says that freq is possibly affected by five things....

Length.  Freq is proportional to 1/LL.  If L shortens to XL (where X is gamma) then we can say that F1 is proportional to  1/XX which is  X^(-2).
Width. Freq is proportional to the width W of each of the two prongs, if the wind blows across the width in the plane of the width then  W narrows to  WX  & we can say that F2 is proportional to  X^(1).
Depth.  The wind can contract the depth D by X, but the depth does not affect freq.
In LWD above i have ignored the base that joins the two prongs, a thin base will affect the above. 
Density.  Freq is proportional to the density of the steel of the fork per (density)^(0.5) & for any & all directions of  the wind the density increases by  X & we can say that F3 is proportional to  X^(0.5).
Young's Modulus.  Freq is proportional to  E per E^(0.5) & if we assume that E is proportional to the density then for any & all directions of the wind we can say that F4 is proportional to X^(-0.5).

F1234  all depend on the orientation of the fork in relation to the wind. There are say three cardinal winds, along L, across W, & across D, & each wind will have its own values for F1234.   And the resultant change in frequency for each wind is proportional to the product  F1*F2*F3*F4  for that wind.   The background wind blows throo Earth at say 500 kmps.   The fork's real natural frequency (absolute or true natural frequency) is realized when the wind is zero kmps.  A 500 kmps wind will according to my calculations give an actual frequency as per the following table.

kmps      gamma X       f1        f2           f3       f4            f1*f2*f3*f4    f1*f2*f3*f4               days for 1sec   
500.00   0.999998609   X^-2  X^0.5   1.00   X^-0.5         X^-2       1.00002782         L       4.16    gain
500.00   0.999998609   1.00    X^0.5   X^1   X^-0.5         X^1       0.999998609       W       8.32    loss
500.00   0.999998609   1.00    X^0.5  1.00   X^-0.5        1.00      1.000000000         D     no effect   

DePalma said that above the axle of his spinning wheel his tuning fork watch suffered a loss of  0.9 sec in 1000 sec (ie 16.67 minutes).  My calculations show it takes days to lose or gain 1 sec if the wind is 500 kmps (ie c/600), & i calculate that  DePalma's wheel had to have produced a wind of  10,000 kmps (ie c/30), which is not believable.  I doubt that a spinning wheel can produce an axial aetherwind of any more than say 10 kmps or 100 kmps tops.
DePalma said that the watch lost most time when orientated as per W.  But my calcs show that L has most effect, & this is a gain not a loss.  Note that L can be towards the wheel or away, makes no difference to my TD.

According to Lorentz & Co (& according to Einstein) the fork (& every other kind of macro clock)(except pendulum etc) is slowed by only gamma (ie X^1) for any & all directions of wind (or in Einstein's case due to relative speed)(he said that the wind was superfluous), ie they would agree with a loss of 1 sec in 8.32 days in every case.
But their ticking dilation is LTD, whereas mine might be called TD.  TD depends on........
(1) the kind of clock (tuning fork, balance wheel, pendulum etc), & it depends on
(2) the design of the clock (size & dimensions), & it also depends on
(3) the orientation of the clock in the wind (or if u like u can say that it depends on the velocity of the wind).

LTD applies only to micro clocks, eg atomic clocks.  My macro TD doesnt i think apply to micro clocks, but it applies to all macro clocks.   Nextly i will have a think about the TD suffered by a balance clock.

[Bored chemist]

DePalma said that above the axle of his spinning wheel his tuning fork watch suffered a loss of  0.9 sec in 1000 sec

He should get a better watch.
Obviously, a mechanical watch will struggle in some circumstances, notably if it's accelerating (that includes rotation or vibration)

[Bored chemist]

My macro TD doesnt i think apply to micro clocks, but it applies to all macro clocks.

That's interesting.
It seems to lead to a testable prediction.
Macro clocks and micro clocks will sometimes run at different rates.
So, for example the rotation of the earth shouldn't tally with atomic clocks.

How big a change do you predict?
A part in a million?
More?
Less?

[Paradigmer]

It may have escaped your notice, but sodium atoms have mass

Red herring fallacy, nice try.

Thanks to Einstein, your denial is futile. The involved authority after seeing the sh1t in the universal laws of thermodynamics, experimentally stirred by BEC in 2001, despite was in denial for more than seventy years (and apparently are still being denied by some), had already validated BEC is a state of matter, and it could interact with photons.

Disobeying the so called universal laws, BEC was experimentally demonstrated to be interacting with the intrinsically spinning massless photons, which effect their centrifugations in the BEC.

BTW, ever heard of a Bose-Einstein condensate of photons?

[Bored chemist]

Red herring fallacy, nice try.

No.
That won't do.
You need to give a reason; just saying "it's a fallacy" won't work here on a science page.

BTW, ever heard of a Bose-Einstein condensate of photons?

Yes
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09567
So?

This all seems an elaborate way to evade the issue. If the ether has mass it should collapse under its own weight.
If it does not, then it's not affected by centrifugal forces.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

DePalma said that above the axle of his spinning wheel his tuning fork watch suffered a loss of  0.9 sec in 1000 sec

He should get a better watch.
Obviously, a mechanical watch will struggle in some circumstances, notably if it's accelerating (that includes rotation or vibration)

DePalma died in about 1999 i think.  Here is what Alan Calverd said about quartz watches in another thread. However i think that DePalma & Podkletnov used the older steel tuning forks kinds, but some of Alan's comments probly still apply.

Podkletnov used an ordinary modern precision wrist watch (how hard would it be?)

A "modern precision wrist watch" keeps good time because it is worn on your wrist. The quartz oscillator is slightly temperature-sensitive and is calibrated for about 30 deg C. Vibration and even air pressure can alter the crystal frequency. If you compare it with a cesium frequency standard, it drifts all over the place and is therefore not a "measure"  but a reasonably adequate "indicator" of  time. Interestingly, however, the crystal frequency is independent of g.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

My macro TD doesnt i think apply to micro clocks, but it applies to all macro clocks.

That's interesting. It seems to lead to a testable prediction. Macro clocks and micro clocks will sometimes run at different rates. So, for example the rotation of the earth shouldn't tally with atomic clocks. How big a change do you predict? A part in a million? More? Less?

Today i amended the numbers etc in my #25 (silly me had quoted numbers off a trash page of my Excel calcs). My numbers show that for a change in wind of 500 kmps a tuning fork clock (one kind of macro clock) can gain or looz 1 sec in 4 days depending on orientation of clock.  Whereas the traditional LorentzianTD says the gain or loss will be 1 sec in 8 days for all clocks, micro (eg atomic clocks) or macro, & LTD also says that direction aint relevant.

Lets accept that the aetherwind blows at 500 kmps south to north throo Earth 20 deg off the spin-axis, RA 4:30.  And this is affected by Earth's 30 kmps orbit, & 0.4 kmps spin.  And lets accept that there is an aether inflow of 11.2 kmps at all points on Earth (11.2 is the escape velocity). And an aether inflow of 42 kmps towards the Sun at Earth's orbit (the escape vel). Plus there will be a kmps re the Moon's escape vel at Earth (cant be bothered looking it up).
 
It should be easy to measure the ticking rate of a quartz watch for various orientations, at a particular time of day & particular time of year (actually it wouldnt be easy because all of the measurements would have to be done in a few minutes). Bearing in mind that when i say various orientations i dont mean in just a 360 deg horizontal circle, no, u need to include the 360 deg of vertical circle.  However armed with the info re that there 500 kmps one can go straight to the needed theoretical direction, which will of course depend on time of day etc, & the latitude of your lab.

Now, if u orientate the fork in a certain direction & measure ticking & then reverse the fork (ie a 180 deg change) u will (according to my TD theory) always get the same ticking, ie no change.  According to my theory u need to compare tickings for orientations that are 90 deg apart. 
The potential max change in ticking is according to my numbers a factor of 1.000 002 782 (which is a gain of 1 in 359,501)(see L in my numbers) changing to a factor of 0.999 998 609 (a loss of 1 in 719,003)(see W). 
And that 1 in 719,003 changes to zero if u then spin the fork 90 deg around on its axis (ie see D).
Anyhow the max possible change tween L & W is 1 in 239,668 which is 1 sec in 2.77 days.

According to the traditional LTD a change in orientation of any clock (excluding pendulums of course) should give zero change in ticking.

Note that here above i am simply using the aetherwind blowing throo Earth, & changing the orientation of the watch.
Nextly one could measure what happens to ticking near a spinning wheel, ie to see if DePalma's measurements of changes in ticking make any sense (which they dont).

[Bored chemist]

OK, so the changes you are talking about are more than 1 part in a million.
It's not clear exactly what you mean by a tuning fork, but you sometimes refer to a quartz watch.
So, If I get a quartz clock and connect a couple of wires to it so it  measures the rate of the flashing ":" in the middle of the display do you think the rate will change in a predictable way if I turn the clock through 90 degrees about some axis?
And do you think that the changes will be more than 1 part in a million?

Would you like to propose experimental details?
I'm not promising to do the experiment but I know that some people here work in electronics labs where measuring time to a part in 10^9 is commonplace and 1 part in 10^12 is perfectly possible.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

OK, so the changes you are talking about are more than 1 part in a million.
It's not clear exactly what you mean by a tuning fork, but you sometimes refer to a quartz watch.
So, If I get a quartz clock and connect a couple of wires to it so it  measures the rate of the flashing ":" in the middle of the display do you think the rate will change in a predictable way if I turn the clock through 90 degrees about some axis?
And do you think that the changes will be more than 1 part in a million?

Would you like to propose experimental details?
I'm not promising to do the experiment but I know that some people here work in electronics labs where measuring time to a part in 10^9 is commonplace and 1 part in 10^12 is perfectly possible.

I would love it if someone could do the two experiments, firstly the simple one, & then the one needing a spinning wheel or disc or something.
Note that there are two separate Nobels on offer here, & i (the thinker) would be happy to share the 2 Nobels with the lowly lab technicians (workers).  It might be best to spread the two papers over two years, for tax reasons.

For the simple one what u would do is measure the rate of ticking of the tuning fork watch by rotating it gradually around in the plane of its tuning fork, the maximum & minimum tickings would according to my theory be found at orientations 90 deg apart.
But make it quick because the fixed lab clock used for comparison will itself suffer a gradual daily change in ticking, which u wont be able to measure without going to extra trouble (which i can help with if needed).
And u would of course have to do that in each of say 180 planes 1 deg apart, or just start off by trying 4 planes 45 deg apart.
If u find the critical plane & the two critical orientations i predict a difference equal to 1 sec in 2.77 days.
The critical plane for the tuning fork will accord with the "plane" of the wind (crudely put), & one of the critical orientations will accord with the alignment of the wind.
If the result is null then that will show that my theory (that LTD has a special effect on macro clocks) is krapp.

Re ticking-Xs near a spinning wheel, these might give weak results, eg 1/100th of the first test. And might need to be corrected for the kinds of results found in the first test (two kinds of correction).
But no corrections would be needed if the watch were kept fixed & it is the wheel that is moved &/or re-orientated, if done fairly quickly.
If the first experiment mentioned above proves to be null, then the second experiment can nonetheless be carried out ok, because the two experiments are looking for two different effects.
I said that the watch can be fixed. But the orientation will affect the result, the strongest results will be found if the tuning fork is aligned parallel or anti-parallel to the wind (which blows about 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis, RA 4:30).

DePalma had some thorts, & would have been delighted if someone could do such experiments.........
Finer measurements can be made using an external electrically powered tuning fork oscillator and an electronic frequency counter. In this case the inertial anisotropy of the od field of a rotating object can be much more quickly and precisely measured. Field strength lines can be plotted along contours of constant frequency shift for the two orientation conditions of fork vibration direction parallel to, and perpendicular to, the axis of rotation of the test object.

Conclusions and Observations: The proper conclusions and evaluations of the above experiment will affect present conceptions of Cosmology. Before this can happen, simple tests must be performed to show the existence of a new phenomenon. It is hoped the apparatus for the performance of these tests is widely enough available to lead to quick verification.
Bruce DePalma

[Kryptid]

I would love it if someone could do the two experiments

And if the results came up null?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I would love it if someone could do the two experiments

And if the results came up null?

If the first X is null (ie a finding of no change in ticking) then that would show that my theory that LLC at a macro level affects TD of macro clocks is krapp.
A null result would in addition threaten the whole concept of an aetherwind, & the concept of an aether.

If the 2nd X is null then that would show that my theory re centrifuging of aether by spinning objects & orbiting objects is krapp.  It would also threaten the concept of an aether.

U might get a Null/Null or a Yes/Yes or a Null/Yes or a Yes/Null.  All four are i think possible.
A Yes/Yes would be very strong evidence for aether.
A Null/Null would be a concern but would not be strong evidence for no aether.

Its like this. The two Xs each are a test re the existence of two particular properties of aether that have been posited by me (& no-one else). A null result for either shows that my theory re that particular property is wrong. But it doesnt show that aether or aetherwind does not exist, it only shows that aether is a different animal to what i posited.

However if the two Xs or any one X give a positive result then not only would that be good evidence that the aether looks & smells like i said, it is at the same time good evidence that the aether exists.

The two effects (if they exist) have been overlooked for years partly because each tends to average itself out over the minutes or days or years.  They only raise their ugly heads in certain situations. 

[13feb2019] I can add that any such X is always of course evidence for or against the whole question of the existence of length contraction & ticking dilation.

[Bored chemist]

OK, say I get a test oscillator and set it running at (something close to) 10 MHz
And I get a frequency counter and connect it up so it reads 10MHz.
The frequency counter's pretty cheap. It has a quartz crystal oscillator in it and it compares the input frequency against that.
So, if something alters the frequency of the quartz  "clock" in the frequency counter, the reading will change.


Are you saying that if I turn the counter on its side or on its end the display will no longer read 10MHz because the frequency of th quartz oscillator in it will be affected by the ether wind?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

OK, say I get a test oscillator and set it running at (something close to) 10 MHz
And I get a frequency counter and connect it up so it reads 10MHz.
The frequency counter's pretty cheap. It has a quartz crystal oscillator in it and it compares the input frequency against that.
So, if something alters the frequency of the quartz  "clock" in the frequency counter, the reading will change.
Are you saying that if I turn the counter on its side or on its end the display will no longer read 10MHz because the frequency of the quartz oscillator in it will be affected by the ether wind?

Yes that would do the trick.
Fix the oscillator & measure its freq with the quartz counter whilst gradually rotating the counter firstly in the horizontal & then in the vertical & then other planes.
Actually, best to always rotate the counter in the plane of its quartz tuning fork if that can be identified.

I am not sure whether there might be some advantage (ie a stronger result) by repeating that with the oscillator fixed on other alignments, especially if the oscillator is some kind of tuning fork.  Hmmmm -- no, nothing gained i think.

Keep a record of the compass horizontal angle & the vertical angle.  And time of day.  And date.

One could also work out a different kind of scheme for checking the ticking near a spinning wheel-disc.  Here u would use just the counter.

But how does the quartz counter work?  Is there an inbuilt secondary frequency source inside (CPU)? It could be a problem, ie there might be the possibility of some kind of accidental automatic compensation giving a guaranteed null result.

[Bored chemist]

In principle, the frequency counter works like this (the details of the numbers etc may differ).
It has a quartz crystal (mounted in a temperature controlled oven if it's an expensive one) which "rings" at exactly 1 MHz
It also has a set of dividers that each give a single pulse output for every 10 pulses fed to their input.
The first of these is fed from the quartz  oscillator. So it produces an output at 100 KHz.
This 100 KHz  signal is then fed to another divider which produces an output of 10KHz
Another 4 dividers give a signal that is exactly 1 pulse per second.

That signal is used to start and stop another counter which counts the pulses of the input signal.
So, if the input signal is 12345 Hz  the clock is set to zero, then set counting pulses from the input for exactly 1 second, then that count, which would be 12345, is copied to the display.

Modern ones do have complicated computer driven tricks like automatic calibration to GPS etc.
But mine is old + simple.

How big a change in frequency should I expect?
You mentioned "a difference equal to 1 sec in 2.77 days."
That's about 1 in 240,000
Would you expect that sort of change?
So, with the "best" (or worst) alignment one clock would differ from the other by about 4 parts in a million?
A change of about 40Hz if I was measuring a 10MHz signal?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

In principle, the frequency counter works like this (the details of the numbers etc may differ).
It has a quartz crystal (mounted in a temperature controlled oven if it's an expensive one) which "rings" at exactly 1 MHz
It also has a set of dividers that each give a single pulse output for every 10 pulses fed to their input.
The first of these is fed from the quartz  oscillator. So it produces an output at 100 KHz.
This 100 KHz  signal is then fed to another divider which produces an output of 10KHz
Another 4 dividers give a signal that is exactly 1 pulse per second.

That signal is used to start and stop another counter which counts the pulses of the input signal.
So, if the input signal is 12345 Hz  the clock is set to zero, then set counting pulses from the input for exactly 1 second, then that count, which would be 12345, is copied to the display.

Modern ones do have complicated computer driven tricks like automatic calibration to GPS etc.
But mine is old + simple.

How big a change in frequency should I expect?
You mentioned "a difference equal to 1 sec in 2.77 days."
That's about 1 in 240,000
Would you expect that sort of change?
So, with the "best" (or worst) alignment one clock would differ from the other by about 4 parts in a million?
A change of about 40Hz if I was measuring a 10MHz signal?

Yes looks good.  According to my #25 if u happen to align the quartz tuning fork in the counter exactly parallel or anti-parallel to the 500 kmps aetherwind blowing throo Earth & if u then rotate the tuning fork in its plane by 90 deg, u should get a 1 in 240,000 change in frequency (no matter what alignment u fix the oscillator on).
If u rotate the quartz tuning fork in other than its plane then the change will be weaker, say 1 in 320,000 (i can work it out exactly).
But if u fail to initially align the centerline of the tuning fork exactly with or gainst the wind then the change will be weaker praps much weaker (it can be zero if unlucky).

If u always initially align the quartz tuning fork with Earth's spin-axis then u will never get a zero change, u will be 20 deg off the wind, & 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.

The manufacturers of frequency meters must of course be aware of this kind of problem.  They would have worked out long ago that there is a bad way to orientate a tuning fork in the meter, & a less bad way, but no good way.
The less bad way might be with the plane of the tuning fork horizontal.  But this would depend on the latitude of the lab, & of course nobody knows where the lab will be.  This must be a problem.  I think horizontal is the best bet, but if the tuning fork in your meter is found to be at a funny angle (ie not horizontal & not vertical) then that would indicate to me that they have given this a lot of thort but aint saying.