Re: Analysis of gas mode MM interferometer operation using standard SR formulae.

On Apr 29, 1:14 am, Surfer <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:30:25 GMT, Tom Roberts

Allais did not check that the individual runs had significant
orientation dependence.

What evidence do you have that individual runs used by Miller to
derive his FINAL RESULTS didn't have significant orientation
dependence?

You have only analysed one run. It included adjustments for
temperature drift. But Miller says in one of his papers that his best
runs didn't require such adjustments.

A false assumption employed by Miller was the assumption of
linearity in the temperature correction needed, i.e. that he
could subtract 0, 1/16, 2/16, 3/16 etc of the difference between
the first and last readings to adjust to a constant baseline.

A careful reading of Miller's papers shows this to have been a
false assumption. A displacement of up to two fringes in a single
turn might be followed by a displacement far less than two fringes
in the next turn, or even one of different sign. With such a
wildly swingling baseline, the artificial adjustment to a constant
baseline by the subtraction of 0, 1/16, 2/16, 3/16 etc. imposes
an imaginary periodic signal on the readings.

Let's try it on the digits of pi. EXCEPT WHERE INDICATED, each
of the following steps roughly corresponds with a step taken in
Miller's analysis:

pi
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028

Take the first 17 digits after the decimal point
14159265358979323

Space each digit and add an extra zero
10 40 10 50 90 20 60 50 30 50 80 90 70 90 30 20 30
'
The difference between first and last is 20. Subtract 0, 1/16,
2/16 etc. of the difference
10 39 8 46 85 14 52 42 20 39 68 76 55 74 12 1 10

Combine the first half-turn with the second half-turn:
10 39 8 46 85 14 52 42 20
20 39 68 76 55 74 12 1 10
----------------------------------
30 78 76 122 140 88 64 43 30

14 . . . . x . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . x . . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . . . .
09 . . . . . x . . .
08 . x x . . . . . .
07 . . . . . . . . .
06 . . . . . . x . .
05 . . . . . . . . .
04 . . . . . . . x .
03 x . . . . . . . x
02 . . . . . . . . .
01 . . . . . . . . .
00 . . . . . . . . .

Draw a smooth curve through the points:
14 . . . . __x . . . .
13 . . . ./ .\ . . . .
12 . . . x . | . . . .
11 . . . _/. . \ . . . .
10 . . _/ . . \. . . .
09 . . _/. . . x . . .
08 . x/ x . . .\_ . . .
07 . /. . . . . \. . .
06 . | . . . . . x . .
05 . | . . . . . .\__. .
04 ./ . . . . . . x__ .
03 x . . . . . . . \x
02 . . . . . . . . .
01 . . . . . . . . .
00 . . . . . . . . .


(Not a step shown in Miller's papers)
A pronounced sine wave modulation is obvious with a period of
half a revolution:
. . . . __x . . . . . . . __x . . . .
. . . ./ .\ . . . . . . ./ .\ . . . .
. . . x . | . . . . . . x . | . . . .
. . . _/. . \ . . . . . . _/. . \ . . . .
. . _/ . . \. . . . . _/ . . \. . . .
. . _/. . . x . . . . _/. . . x . . .
. x/ x . . .\_ . . . x/ x . . .\_ . . .
. /. . . . . \. . . /. . . . . \. . .
. | . . . . . x . . | . . . . . x . .
. | . . . . . .\__. . | . . . . . .\__. .
./ . . . . . . x__ ./ . . . . . . x__ .
x . . . . . . . \x . . . . . . . \x

Jerry
.

Relevant Pages