Breaking News
Design How-To

NO RATINGS
< Previous Page 2 / 2
Page 1 / 4   >   >>
User Rank
Author
11/8/2012 3:23:22 AM
NO RATINGS
I was VERY intrigued by the title of this article! I have been working with MEMS inertial sensors for several years now and this would be an incredible boon to the industry. Almost too good to be true? I was a little surprised no one had thought of this before. I was curious about the effect that was measured, as the plot shown in Figure 1 doesn’t actually show any result (nothing about it says x velocity leads to y output to be measured on the oscilloscope). So, I found this page regarding the operation of the device: http://www.space-navigation.com/2294.html At this point something seemed very familiar about this! I realized, this is the classic “light clock” of Einstein's thought experiments. So, unfortunately due to the (stubborn) universal lack of a privileged reference frame, this device would not work. In fact, if it did work, I would be interested in knowing how the device separates the velocity on the plane relative to the Earth, from the consistently high velocity of our rotation around the Earth (0 ~ 1000 mph), and the higher velocity of the Earth around the sun (~67,000mph), and the higher still velocity of the solar system around the galaxy (~514,495mph)... This is a very good little graphical representation of the math behind this: http://youtu.be/sv5KgHW3JIg?t=11m44s So, unfortunately this will be no jet propulsion revolution in inertial measurement. Cheers!

User Rank
Author
11/8/2012 10:52:40 AM
NO RATINGS
Page 2: "Stealth operation that is free of man-maid or natural interference" ...also there's no ways of being stealthy when there is some man-maid interference going on.

User Rank
Author
11/8/2012 6:31:51 PM
NO RATINGS
"measures an object velocity from within the object in motion, and only the motion itself." Isn't that in violation of Einstein's "Principle of Relativity" ??

User Rank
Author
11/8/2012 6:32:10 PM
NO RATINGS
I checked the date of this article--I don't see "April fools day" anywhere. And it's not pre-Einstein relativity either. This physicist says that this non-inertial navigation is pure marketing. Someone is hiding something here. Parker Technology and AppCon group sound like the ones...since I've never heard of them before.

User Rank
Author
11/8/2012 6:41:02 PM
NO RATINGS
these people seem to be claiming that there is an absolute frame of reference, and it's the frame travelling with the light beam...(!) (Don't invest yet)

User Rank
Author
11/9/2012 3:02:44 AM
NO RATINGS
Dear AlNav It is great that you found this VERY intriguing, and it is surprising that you just found out about this theoretical concept since it is almost a decade old!!! Regarding similarity of the theoretical model with Einstein’s “light clock” which in the original work called “Grethen or Gertrude Clock” I would advise you to compare the description of this contraption in its original form to the description in the modern books of Physics. I think you will find serious discrepancies between original Einstein train of thoughts and its modern interpretation and especially our theoretical model. Regarding a preferred or as you may call it privilege frame of references. As it stated in all our work including the theoretical page in web site “space-navigation” we stipulate that: “It has to be taking into account that the devices of Non-Inertial Navigation do not provide grounds for establishing the preferred frame of references and measurements done by such devices are to be calibrated in relative terms only.” In that we don’t have to separate all motions that were mentioned in your remarks. Zero can be set at any position and any motion. The device will read only differences between set numbers and actual motions. The graphical representation, you have referred to, illustrates Einstein’s theory of moving clocks and objects, but it does not addresses the difference between distances that the two beams travel inside of the contraption in motion. The sited in the video Michelson work on interferometery and especially dual path of the light beams holds the key to this riddle To clarify some uncertainty on this subject I would suggest the article by R. Wang et al. ‘Generalized Sagnac Effect’ (Physical Review, Letters 93, 143901.) We have utilized this finding in building linear Sagnac model. Quick conclusions not always define a direct line to the rightness.

User Rank
Author
11/9/2012 3:08:42 AM
NO RATINGS
No we don’t As it stated in our work: “It has to be taking into account that the devices of Non-Inertial Navigation do not provide grounds for establishing the preferred frame of references and measurements done by such devices are to be calibrated in relative terms only.” To clarify some uncertainty on this subject I would suggest the article by R. Wang et al. ‘Generalized Sagnac Effect’ (Physical Review, Letters 93, 143901.) We have utilized this finding in building linear Sagnac model.

User Rank
Author
11/9/2012 3:13:32 AM
NO RATINGS
Our work violates ‘Special Relativity’ no more than Michelson-Gale or Sagnac To clarify some uncertainty on this subject I would suggest the article by R. Wang et al. ‘Generalized Sagnac Effect’ (Physical Review, Letters 93, 143901.) We have utilized this finding in building linear Sagnac model.

User Rank
Author
11/9/2012 3:22:20 AM
NO RATINGS
Dear ‘physicist’ please, do educate yourself on works of Michelson-Gale, Sagnac, R. Wang. BTW, about ether- read work of Einstein and Paul Dirac on this matter.

User Rank
Author