# Gravity Research Update

Einstein,

the fact that you use terms like "gravity pulse generator" and "gravity waves" to describe things you (personally) cannot explain (and purposefully resist explaining, mathematically) certainly qualifies you to be described and rated by John Baez's crackpot rating scale... I am sure you must be familiar with this.

But for right now this experiment is begging me for a mathematical description. Because this is a Unified Field Theory concept. Looks just like simple algebra to me. What do you guys think?

Again, in my experienced opinion, you are fooling yourself into trying to avoid calculus. Darby's point is about as technically accurate as one can get, but let me try a different tactic:

Your eletronic setup no doubt has capacitors, and at least one large inductor. Capacitors are time-integrating devices that can ONLY be accurately described with the integral calculus. Inductors are time-deriving devices that can ONLY be accurately described with the differential calculus. Ergo, no mathematical explanation for your device or its effect (that would pass muster with an undergrad math instructor) can possibly be devoid of calculus. Period.

And this brings up your willy-nilly use of terms ("gravity wave") to describe something that you do not wish to model with existing science (because it would spoil your fantasy party). The problem is, if you are going to use your own, personal interpretive bias in what you observe as the EFFECT of your device, then it must carry all the way through to the nuts and bolts of what makes your device operate (down to the caps and the inductors). Certainly, it MUST especially if you are taking the grand step of calling this a Unified Field Theory... So now you are faced with a daunting task once you wield the term "gravity pulse generator" and the like. That task is that you (singlehandedly) must now redefine the entire basis of science and its mathematical underpinnings to fit your individual observations. Given your disdain for math that I already see, I'd say you are taking on a job that cannot ever be completed.

So what are you going to re-name capcaitors and inductors? "Gravity collection cells" and "gravity modulating coils"?

As I have said before, your experimental bent is to be appreciated and encouraged. But your fast and loose use of names to describe what you see, which flies in the face of scientific mathematical quantification of these effects, it crackpottery as only John Baez would hope to spot.

RMT

Darby,

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I've just reviewed the scoring with respect to the types of things that I recall Einstein saying ever since he started describing his "gravity wave" device. So far, he has scored quite a few points...I have boldened the ones that I believe Einstein deserves "credit" for trying to get away with:

A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

RMT

Darby

Zeno's Paradox re. The Tortoise and Achilles

I looked up the following on Wikipedia which is supposed to represent this:

"You can never catch up."

â€œ In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead

This is only a paradox if you assume it to be true. In the real world it is not true. Each time the quicker runner overtakes the tortoises previous position, the increment of time gets smaller and smaller. Eventually that time interval reaches zero. That would be the intersection point where the quicker runner overtakes the tortoise.

Of course your problem is a problem in dynamics. It involves a field - a field that has varying strength, density, etc. Variation is change - dynamics. You even related it as "four fields co-varying".

You can classify it as a dynamic problem if you like. But then it becomes your problem, not mine. When I think of dynamics, I think of change such as motion. Motion is based in time. Yet in the experimental observation I am interpreting that time itself is one of the covarying fields. That would suggest that the other fields are using something else other than time as they covary. Since the other fields do appear to be independant and have their own separate nature. So I really have to ask if you could legally call it a dynamic problem when it appears that the actual basis for dynamics can only exist within the field of time.

Motion is based in time.

Incomplete. Motion is based in space-time. Something your namesake was a fundamental force in explaining to the rest of us.

It seems when you encounter things that don't meet with your interpretations, you simply change the definitions. Throwing away anything that does not meet your worldview?

RMT

Wow.. RMT sure got a nice 30-06 rifle. No wonder Einstein died, he was too smart... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

When you guys going to learn to stop bickering over motion and time? Prove that motion is based in 'space-time', RMT. prove it! Dont give me those math equations, it still doesnt prove a thing.

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT

What gives? Is it the comment I made about calling you a pedantic pessimist? If it tweaked a nerve, I'm sorry. Please accept my apology and move on. I do realize that there is a shortage of trolls for you to pick on. Just hang on a bit longer. One will come along.

Besides you do have to realize that I am an overzealous researcher. I do jump to conclusions about things that I consider to be in the realm of fringe area science. But the conclusions are logical. So if you do see an error in my logic, jump in and participate.

By the way, I work 11 hour days. So I don't have as much time as you to post. If you could keep your responces much much shorter, I could better address them.

Einstein,

There are many things on this Earth that are completely unexplainable by science. Some scientists do not accept that because it conflicts with their belief that science will explain everything for them.

I commend you for taking up this project of yours. Its really fascinating to me! I hope you do continue researching this project, never mind what you might discover. Who knows.. maybe someday you will encounter something that is unexplainable by science, if not already.

Sometimes, we all have to keep things to ourselves and out of the public domain. I know how that feels when I discovered a few things which science cannot explain. In turn, it takes faith to continue with my own discoveries.

~~boy.. I cant wait til that thing shows up. once it does, it will throw all fundamentals of science out of whack.~~~ (I am not saying this, but a discovery is a discovery)

Pro7

There are many things on this Earth that are completely unexplainable by science. Some scientists do not accept that because it conflicts with their belief that science will explain everything for them.

Somebody has to lead the way. ME! I guess everybody has a bit of an ego. But that has to be put aside in a lot of my investigations. I don't get to decide mother natures rules of operation. But it sure is a lot of fun discovering what they are.

yup /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Judging myself now... (this is my personal ego)

1. I am RMT's ex-troll?
2. I am a lunatic by world's scientific opinions or perhaps their ratings?
3. Victim of 'psychic vampiric attacks'?
4. People are keeping records on me? Am I a bad person?
5. I may be a very dangerous fellow, but the world doesnt know it because I was never in jail? too smart to get caught?

Judging myself again... (This is my alter-ego)

1. I am someone, a complete stranger to you. I know everything there is about you by reading your words or even looking at you... (generally speaking)
2. I am good at something but I dont share it with people. That something is only for the gifted.
3. I am on the TTI forum for one purpose, that purpose alone, serve my needs.
4. I have no guilt... I have unlearned the ways of society.
5. Terminal velocity in the settings of the alter-ego consciousness is a doctor's love.

&gt;&gt; Einstein, I can tell by the "tone of your words" that you are angry inside at someone who just 'viciously psychically attacked you'. Yup.. thats the way the world is. You remember the stories on sci fi channels about human vampires? Well we dont have blood sucking vampires here, but we do have mind sucking vampires running everywhere. Have you ever thought that the world is divided between two fronts and is fighting against eachother for control of peoples' minds?

Hmm... that day is coming.. when all fundamental of science will be thrown in the garbage. Dont ask me when, but I know its coming.. it will come sooner or later.

(crazy eh?.. well I tell it like it is, I just hate giving people bad news)

Einstein,

What gives? Is it the comment I made about calling you a pedantic pessimist? If it tweaked a nerve, I'm sorry. Please accept my apology and move on. I do realize that there is a shortage of trolls for you to pick on. Just hang on a bit longer. One will come along.

I am dealing with your technical approach, its good points (experimentation), and its limitations (some quite severe). If you wish to make this personal that is your choice, not mine.

But the conclusions are logical.

In your mind, perhaps. But I have yet to see validation of the logic you use. You seem to use the word "logic" as if validation is self-evident. I have pointed out many times now the problem with that approach viz-a-viz "what you see is not always what you think it is" and the limitations of human perception without quantification.

So if you do see an error in my logic, jump in and participate.

I have done so in the past, and you have simply ignored my good-willed attempts to aid your credibility. As just one example, do you honestly think it is logical to jump to a conclusion based on the use of a sensor clearly outside the operational range for which it was constructed? In all manner of logic I am aware of, that is definitely NOT logical. In fact, it could be termed a non-sequitor as it does not follow you could make ANY logical conclusion when using a device outside the operational range it was designed for.

By the way, I work 11 hour days.

And I work two jobs, one of which I am luckily on break from over the holidays.

If you could keep your responces much much shorter, I could better address them.

The only replies that I hope for are in response to technical issues that I raise. Alas, you seem to not wish to respond to those and instead make it personal. For example, do you understand the point I made about integral and differential calculus with regard to the electronic devices in your setup? Can you refute this fundamental point I have made with your nonchalant regard for mathematics as a technical modeling tool? (BTW, your posts can be quite long. So you choose to spend time on those, but not on addressing technical issues that speak to the credibility of your work and conclusions. What does that say?)

RMT

When you guys going to learn to stop bickering over motion and time? Prove that motion is based in 'space-time', RMT. prove it! Dont give me those math equations, it still doesnt prove a thing.

Fine. No equations involved. You seem to enjoy the "direct experience" so here goes.

2) You realize you would like a cool beverage from your refrigerator.
3) Start a stopwatch.
5) Stop the stopwatch.

Now for the axioms:

A) Clearly you have moved from one point, to another, and back to the original point. Hence, since you moved you exhibited MOTION.
B) Clearly you can measure and quantify the distance between your chair and the refrigerator. This distance is SPACE, and you traveresed this space twice in the process of this MOTION.
C) It took you some period of TIME to enact this MOTION as exhibited by the stopwatch.

Therefore: It should be quite clear from the above that MOTION does indeed involve both SPACE and TIME, hence the metrics of MOTION are based in space-time. THe language of calculus provides us with the various dimensions of motion (velocity, acceleration, jerk, etc.)

And if you want the equation, the average velocity of the above defined motion would be:

Vavg = Time on stopwatch/(2*Distance from chair to fridge)

Q.E.D. (On more than one level!)
RMT

Pro,

You should not forget something I cautioned you about in a PM long ago (in a prior incarnation of yourself on this board). It seems you think I was kidding. So be it.

3. Victim of 'psychic vampiric attacks'?

Playing the victim mentality. It is obvious then that you have either not yet read/seen "The Secret" or you simply have not taken it to heart.
Either way, this style is one thing that gives you away. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif

4. I have no guilt... I have unlearned the ways of society.

You may have unlearned guilt, I will give you that (maybe you HAVE seen "The Secret"?). However, there are certainly other "ways of society" that you have yet to unlearn and still feel they are valuable to you, such as those which influence you in such a way as to project the following feelings of yourself onto another:

that you are angry inside at someone who just 'viciously psychically attacked you'.

Perhaps you might consider that some people, like you, have unlearned the feelings of guilt that society wishes to impose upon us? Is it possible others can achieve your advanced levels?

Projection usually says more about the projector than the projectee or the subject of the projection. Another giveaway. But I genuinely do feel sorry for you that you feel such the victim to even project these things onto others. Extending the hand for professional help is not a deameaning thing. I have even done it at times in my life. It can refresh and renew one's outlook on life's purpose.

RMT

Another technical point, Einstein:

Besides you do have to realize that I am an overzealous researcher. I do jump to conclusions about things that I consider to be in the realm of fringe area science.

But surely you have not fooled yourself into believing that your loose use of terms ("hopeful" is how I describe them) strengthens your credibility? I know that you are MUCH more intelligent than that Einstein. I am sure that you are quite aware that continued usage of terms such as "gravity wave" for something you cannot explain (nor even determine if someone has already quantified it) opens you up to things like having the "crackpot index" levied at your statements?

So given that I know you are intelligent enough to know this, then one must question why you do it, instead of using a much more neutral term? Logic would say there are at least two reasons that one would immediately suspect:

1) You seek to draw attention to yourself and/or
2) You are purposefully attempting to setup a hoax for people who would not question your conclusions.

Of course, neither one of these has a direct relation to your experimentation and your alleged goals, and that can be troubling when one attempts to assess motives (intention), which is a concern of mine in ferreting out hoaxers.

But maybe you could offer up a reason for why you insist upon using language that you know will draw ire from some (like me or Darby) as much as it may draw intrigue from those less learned?

RMT

Ray,

I'll weigh in on Einstein's couclusions at this point.

He said that he believes that in his experiments he's entered the whelm of the weak force. That's OK in so far as his conclusions are concerned. The problem, of course, is that he is still alive to tell us about his conclusions. The weak force is involved with beta decay - nuclear radiation. If, as he proposed, he has found a way to tap into the weak force with his experiments we should see the results. The result of his experiment is that he should be mortally wounded by the nuclear radiation given off by his experiments via weak force beta decay.

If he is dead as a result of being irradiated by these particles sometime before spring of 2008 then I might consider his theory to be on the right track, much like Madame Currie was considered to be on the mark at te end of the 19th Century. If he is still alive then his theory is wrong. He did not tap into the weak nuclear/beta decay force.

As to his other proclimations, I'm still awaiting some offer of proof. He's proclaimed that he's tapped into the gravitational force and emitted gravitaional waves from a Radio Shack gadget. That's all well and good but as far as we know, emission of a graviaional wave requires the energy of a collapsing star for it to be detected. Gravitation is approximetely 10^-48 times weaker than the electro-magnetic force. Asking an oscilloscope top detect gravitational waves is less that hillarious. We currently use detectors that are 10+ kilometers long to be able to detect gravitational waes. Gravity is, by many, many orders of strength, the weakest force of all. We only detect it at all because it is only attractive, unlike the EM force which is both attractive and repulsive. If it had a repulsive analogous aspect, at leat in the Newtonian realm, we would not detect gravity at all.

There's nothing in his posts that indicate why he believes these wave forms are not EM related but, rather, are gravitational.

RMT,

"The secret" ? YUP. I have seen it all. 18 years old, fresh out of highschool, into the summer, so horrifying I will never ever forget. Unless you are referring to something else, once experienced, you too would be sputtering 'nonsense' in the audience of the world. After my first horrifying event, it seemed like random choices lead me to more horrifying events.

These things are real, RMT. It is of apparent nature that most people have not seen or felt the horror. In that perception, I cannot really blame you or anyone else for not believing. As you could imagine, it is a horror view that even I would not want you to experience.

"Seek professional help"? Well I have tried them all. It did help me in some ways but not as of much. Even then the psychiatrists who I have paid visited to, on recommendation by my parents at the time, all said that I am a above intelligent person however would need time to adjust the experiences and integrate them into my life.

RMT, its not the language that you see typewritten by me on here. If you could only use your internal voice for each word typewritten, you will see that I do type in a "3-dimensional" aspect. I still do not understand why I type or speak this way. I am much better, way better than that.

Here is what I am going to say:

It is apparent that you do not understand this issue because you have not yet experienced it. This is why it compels you to openly 'attack' people on their level of mentality. You are searching for some answers but yet not given to you, which makes you frustrated. You want the answers NOW! but those answers keep eluding you at every chance.

Did you know that 'balance of nature, balance of humanity and spirituality' is intertwined? It seems in my perception of you, you do not truly believe that. It truly does not matter how intelligent a person is, it all matters of how the experience is being given to that person, alone. The question is, 'why would I care in what you, RMT, believe?'... Thats one of the secrets, RMT.

This is why I join forums to study intelligence, I, too, is looking for answers to what I have experienced. So, RMT please do not start 'attacking' people since the TTI forum was designed to be a fiction site to begin with. 'Attacking' people will make the TTI forum to fall and it would start making people think that its no longer a SCI FI site.

Sci-Fi Site of the Week - June 1, 1999.

When I say "Psychic Vampiric attacks", that is a SCI FI term but it can be viewed as reality because its what you are doing to people. Maybe you do not realize it, but it is what you are doing. Open your eyes, RMT.. there are other things besides human nature and spirituality.

I am not going to endlessly argue with you on this point. This is my final straw on an attempt to make even you understand.

:D

Einstein,

Continue with your experiment. I would love to see what the results are! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif (*ignore people who put you down, this TTI site wasnt designed to put people down.)

Darby,

In the other forum, I did post a warning about using gravitational experiments. I do believe that the human body is regulated by gravitational forces. Any effects coming from experiments such as these, can greatly effect the body's functions. Extreme high powered gravitational experiments without some kind of protection would probably warp a person's DNA structure into some kind of mutant aspect.

Low levelled powered gravitational experiments will probably only effect minute DNA changes but DNA is known to correct itself.

Hmmm...

RMT

1) You seek to draw attention to yourself and/or
2) You are purposefully attempting to setup a hoax for people who would not question your conclusions.

Of course, neither one of these has a direct relation to your experimentation and your alleged goals, and that can be troubling when one attempts to assess motives (intention), which is a concern of mine in ferreting out hoaxers.

Now this reply of yours does seem to be wrtten in a more civilized manner. This is the RMT I truly enjoy having a discussion with.

As for drawing attention to myself? Sure. But my intention is to stimulate others to join in with the search. I just don't have a desire to hoax. That just seems like a boring waste of time to me. My thing is solving some of the unsolved mysteries in physics. I'm a problem solver.

But maybe you could offer up a reason for why you insist upon using language that you know will draw ire from some (like me or Darby) as much as it may draw intrigue from those less learned?

I didn't really understand why that would offend you. It is not my intention to offend anyone. I just use logical analogy to compare what I see to what it is like. The only thing that even comes close to the waves I'm investigating is gravity waves. So I don't know what else to call them. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable trying to label it something new. But that just may turn out to be the case. So just to keep the peace, would you accept that they appear to be heretofore undocummented in and out waves. The waves appear to lead the voltage wave by 90 degrees which suggests an orthoganol nature. The waves also appear to be omnidirectional, since sensor orientation doesn't seem to matter. And the waves appear to pass through anything unimpeded. Or maybe you have a preferred term that would be more to your liking?

Hi Darby

He said that he believes that in his experiments he's entered the whelm of the weak force. That's OK in so far as his conclusions are concerned. The problem, of course, is that he is still alive to tell us about his conclusions. The weak force is involved with beta decay - nuclear radiation. If, as he proposed, he has found a way to tap into the weak force with his experiments we should see the results. The result of his experiment is that he should be mortally wounded by the nuclear radiation given off by his experiments via weak force beta decay.

I'll disagree on this. This would only occur if I actually succeeded in breaking a weak force bond. I'm more inclined to think that I am just causing this bonding force to oscillate below its energy breaking point.

As to his other proclimations, I'm still awaiting some offer of proof. He's proclaimed that he's tapped into the gravitational force and emitted gravitaional waves from a Radio Shack gadget.

I'm sorry if I misled you into believing it is a Radio Shack device. I designed and built my triangle wave generator around the 555 timer chip. I might have mentioned that a lot of the components in many of my experiments can be obtained at Radio Shack.

There's nothing in his posts that indicate why he believes these wave forms are not EM related but, rather, are gravitational.

With these latest experiments I am leaning towards a strong EM relation. Since there appears to be a strong interaction with the frequency of the EM wave without any other noticable changes. But that does suggest that maybe there is also a separate similar force that just works on mass.

Einstein,

Now this reply of yours does seem to be wrtten in a more civilized manner. This is the RMT I truly enjoy having a discussion with.

I am sorry if you think bringing out the crackpot index was uncivilized. But while John Baez created it mostly from a humorous standpoint, it has stood the test of time for identifying when people are making some pretty wild statements and claims about their personal research. I think it would be hard for you to deny that at least SOME of the points I have boldened above apply to some of the things you have stated in your research reports.

I didn't really understand why that would offend you.

Because it is disingenuous, and it is certainly NOT in the best traditions of those exploring the frontiers of science who wish to be respected. And it does not offend me, it concerns me.

The only thing that even comes close to the waves I'm investigating is gravity waves.

That is hopeful and premature. This is another area where mathematical modeling of the E-field and B-field would help you ascertain if what you are seeing is an errant effect of the sensor (most likely) or something else that someone else has already quantified.

So I don't know what else to call them. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable trying to label it something new. But that just may turn out to be the case.

I guarantee you it is not new. How about you just call it "my currently unexplained phenomenon" rather than trying to lead people on who may understand physics less than you or I?

The waves appear to lead the voltage wave by 90 degrees which suggests an orthoganol nature. The waves also appear to be omnidirectional, since sensor orientation doesn't seem to matter.

What you are describing is directly related to my comment immediately above about something I find you are doing which is definitely not logical. Namely, using a sensor outside of its defined (designed-for) frequency. I have mentioned to you before why this is not copacetic, and why it is certainly erroneous to come to any conclusions based on this illogical setup. Perhaps I should give you more detail at this point.

What you are seeing is most definitely related to time, or more properly, phase. Do you know what a Bode Plot of frequency response is? It is a set of two logarithmic plots of input signal frequency. One plot for gain and one for phase. The gain plot shows the log of the ratio of the magnitudes (input wave to output wave) for any physical system. In the case of your accelerometer this Bode gain plot would show you the magnitude relationship between what the sensor experiences (input stim) and what it reports (output signal). The phase plot is the one that is most related to the phenomenon you are seeing, and why sensors should never be used outside their designed frequency range to draw conclusions. Here is a set of Bode plots:

http://www.me.cmu.edu/ctms/modeling/tutorial/systemidentification/under_bode.bmp

The top one is the gain plot, the bottom one is the phase plot. The curve you see on the phase plot is called "rolloff" and it represents the increase in phase lag (time shift) that results from the fact that all physical systems possess inertia, and cannot respond instantaneously to an input. All physical systems (especially accelerometers) experience relatively the same type of rolloff in that as frequency increases, phase lag also increases (phase = 0 Deg means output is in-phase with input, and as phase moves to -180 degrees the output is more and more lagging the input). Sensors are designed for certain operational frequency ranges to PREVENT rolloff from affecting the veracity of the sensor's measurements. This is precisely why it is inappropriate (and downright deceptive) to use a sensor at frequencies that are HIGHER than what the sensor was designed for. If you do, as a result of phase rolloff at high frequencies, you are not seeing the TRUE response of the body that the sensor is attached to. Conclusions based on bad data are.... well... bad conclusions.

Do you now understand?
RMT

Replies
1
Views
280
Replies
0
Views
381
Replies
63
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
232