Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> 
> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<40C78912.ECAC86B6@hate.spam.net>...
> > Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> > >
> > > selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0406041518.6daa54d9@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Uncle Al (UncleAl0@hate.spam.net)
> [snip]
> 
> > If you truly believe you have something other than merde, I invite you
> > to submit to Physical Review and make it past qualified referees, or
> > have it be accepted and acted upon by a legitimate academic group.
> > Uncle Al's calculated empirical assault upon the Equivalence Principle
> >
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> >
> > was presented at the 01 May 2004 APS national meeting in Denver,
> >
> > http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
> > Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc. 49(2) 54 (2004)
> >
> > We are now in collaboration with a recognized (oh boy and how!)
> > academic group.  We expect the parity Eotvos experiment to be
> > conducted in P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21 alpha-quartz test masses by 2006.
> >
> > What have you got, bunky?  Self-publication on the Net is not
> > reprehensible, but it is worth the paper upon which it is written.
[snip]

> I am really happy hearing of your win and collaboration with so sound
> academic group. Every success to you. Your experiment with Eotvos
> balance is interesting, though you will surely have lots of trouble
> with this thing. So, when jmfbahciv@aol.com thinks, it can take two
> months, it only says that he never had in hands even a ruler (I'm far
> from mind to reproach him). ;-) Surely, no one can grasp all reefs of
> this experiment better than you do. I can only express my sympathy
> knowing that it is basically impossible to balance two masses ideally.
> And you will have a difference not only in inertia but in moment of
> inertia connected with the length of half-arms where the studied
> masses will be fixed. By some reason I think impossible to eliminate
> it by a simple nulling of interferometer - i.e., by choosing the
> floating point as the reference base. But you, undoubtedly, see it
> better.
> 
> Unfortunately, I did not see in your brief presentation one more
> important question. Having dared to test the inertial mass versus that
> gravitational, you seemingly may want to have an exact idea of
> physical meaning of inertia and gravitation, or the very essence of
> measurement blurs. This raises a natural question: what namely we
> compare? Incredibly difficult question. Even without proving the
> Equivalency Principle, to answer this question would be a great
> achievement. On the other hand, out of understanding this, I truly
> have no idea what can you compare with what. We in our laboratory
> still have such upper achievement: we have proven the possibility of
> negative measure of inertia in dynamic systems. We are able to conduct
> this experiment. We also have a definite idea of the essence of
> gravitation, but we have to develop this subject better and I truly
> yet would not dare to study it experimentally, having not more precise
> idea of calculation model. But again, you see it better.
> 
> Not in vain I write you this. I know, you undoubtedly will yield
> vibrations of Eotvos pendulum, but I would like much, it would not
> happen as with Sagnac experiment. It also seemed to him that he has
> solved the problem and detected the aether wind, but it appeared, he
> simply disregarded that mirrors turn when his interferometer turned.
> As I see, you also will have mirrors fixed tangentially to each other.
> They will be arranged on the same fiber with the Eotvos pendulum and
> will experience the torsion of fiber and disbalance of rotating
> masses. This will cause wider fringes and, hence, will blur the
> result. Additionally, you will need a balanced source of pendulum
> excitation. Interferometer is a damnably sensitive thing.
> 
> As I can see, the experiment with Eotvos pendulum will be for you not
> a start but finish of a long chain of experiments on preparation of
> tested bodies with equal measures of inertia and on balancing them.
> The points will be: precise fixation of masses, balancing of pendulum
> arms (without masses), and finally selection of masses with equal
> measure of inertia. Possibly, an elastic pendulum will be of help.

You lack conceptualization of how an Eotvos rotor works.  The test
masses are "local" in the technical sense - their positions are
nulled.  The whole apparatus is constantly rotating on a precision
turntable for phase locked detection.  All rotor moments of inertia
and higher harmonics are nulled to at least second order.  Mass
differences are automatically nulled by the vertical rotor (and the
multi-gram test masses are balanced to microgram precision anyway). 
Unique to the parity Eotvos experiment, all four or eight test masses
are *chemically identical* and therefore macroscopically identical  -
no symmetric carving or hollowing is necessary to balance mass vs.
moments of inertia because of different test mass densities.  It
should be the most perfect zero output ever observed if gravitation is
parity-even (e.g., metric).

A parity Eotvos experiment is a *perfect* material null.  Adelberger
has empirically nulled his Mark III rotor to one part in 10^13
difference/average for contrasted composition test masses.  The only
difference between parity Eotvos experiment alpha-quartz test masses
is their enantiomorphic crystallographic space groups, P3(1)21 vs.
P3(2)21.  If gravitation is parity-odd (e.g., affine/teleparallel), a
30 in 10^(-13) anomaly is 100% allowed vs. prior observation. 
Thermodynamics frowns on an anomaly exceeding about 100x10^(-13)
difference/average weight vectors.  And remember... Contrasted parity
test masses are at least 500 times more concentrated in active mass
than the best contrasted composition test masses.  ALL of their
nuclear mass is active mass - nuclear positions define the space
group.  The difference adds not subtracts.

Bottom line:  The parity Eotvos experiment has between 15,000 and
100,000 times *more* allowed differential signal amplitude than the
best composition Eotvos experiment.  Uncle Al is an organic chemist. 
Organikers have trouble working with small numbers.

> Comparing the natural frequencies for tested masses, you seemingly
> will be able to select their measure of inertia in the most precise
> way. This will be specially important, as in your experiment the
> equalisers are contra-indicative. They would introduce the difference
> into moment of inertia comparable with the sought result. On this way
> I only can wish you sensitive hands and sharp-sighted eyes.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/

We use a mirror on the rotor as one leg of a long optical
interferometer.  Total rotor rim rotation oscillation for breaking out
the champagne would be the width of one atom.  Only low interrogation
intensities are tolerated.  The photons measurably torque the rotor.
 
> Concerning your advice me to follow your way. When I read it, I only
> thought: let God to hear your words. You long time whirl in this
> boiler and know no worse than I do how jealous are our comrades in
> arms. ;-) You can recall my thread on diffusive coatings which you
> saw. I suggested to these gristles a million-dollars business, a
> topical technology developed up to report of comparative test with
> best known technologies - and they seek mistakes in my English
> language and reproach me in whatever sins. However much I suggested
> them to discuss the point, they did not.
> 
> Though, I cannot think unsuccessful all our activity. Our methods to
> calculate elastic systems and electric ladder filters have been
> recognised the Technology of the week in EU,
> 
> " Understanding vibration "
> 
> http://dbs.cordis.lu/fep-cgi/srchidadb?ACTION=D&SESSION=299052003-8-20&DOC=2&TBL=EN_OFFR&RCN=EN_RCN:1158&CALLER=OFFR_O_SCIE_EN
> 
> and  " Electrophysical problems may be dynamically resolved "
> 
> http://dbs.cordis.lu/fep-cgi/srchidadb?ACTION=D&SESSION=&DOC=1&TBL=EN_OFFR&RCN=EN_RCN:1093&CALLER=OFFR_TM_EN
> 
> This means, we submit our works for reviewing as possible, though
> today I have a great doubt in so-called internationally-recognised
> peer reviewing.

Peer review works remarkably well.  Where it fails it has an admirable
track record of going back to correct its admitted mistakes.  Either
you publish amdist your peers, or you reduce to practice and
demonstrate to industry.  If neither academia nor industry cares,
become a better salesman.

 [snip]

> By the way, we sent the link to the paper announced in this thread to
> NASA, STScI, Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, asking them to express
> their opinion, as we cited much their studies which were in a great
> help for our analysis. We received the alert confirming, they have
> read our invitation, and we know, they have read the paper. But they
> keep silence just as in case of our previous papers on astrophysics.
> This tells, it's their regular reaction confirming, they have no
> claims to our material, but no constructive attitude to us also. So
> you see, we strain our muscles to do so as you advice.

Submit to Physical Review.  NASA is a slum.

Here's a hint:  If you cannot explain what you are doing with a
cocktail napkin and a swizzle stick, you have already lost.  Nobody
reads more than one page.  If you haven't seduced the reader by the
second paragraph, you are going home without a kiss. 
 
[snip]

> In the end, I would like to hear from you few words about the
> announced paper. Above all other, we tried much to answer your
> question. Do you accept our answer?

It's not mine to judge.  You have to convince the gatekeepers.  If you
want penetration, I recommend an icepick.  The baby sledge hits the
back of the ice pick, not the target itself.

-- 
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!