Breaking News
Design How-To

Developing non-inertial navigation devices

Non-Inertial Navigation technology
NO RATINGS
< Previous Page 2 / 2
More Related Links
View Comments: Threaded | Newest First | Oldest First
AlNav
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
AlNav   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!

DickH
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
DickH   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)

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   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.

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   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.

AlNav
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
AlNav   11/9/2012 5:57:29 PM
NO RATINGS
"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." And yet you don't see a 24hr variation as the device rotates around the earth? On the surface of the earth, at a moderate north latitude we all move at a few hundred miles per hour. If the device were rotated by 180 degrees, then it would report a negative velocity. (Never mind all of the other velocities previously mentioned)

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/9/2012 8:13:34 PM
NO RATINGS
"If the device were rotated by 180 degrees, then it would report a negative velocity". Device will read the negative direction not a negative velocity.

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/9/2012 4:14:48 PM
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.

grover_gren
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
grover_gren   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.

DickH
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
DickH   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" ??

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   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.

pfiekowsky
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
pfiekowsky   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.

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   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.

AlNav
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
AlNav   11/9/2012 5:43:53 PM
NO RATINGS
I read the paper by Wang, et al. [1]. It appears they simply changed the geometry of the ring gyro to elongate the ring and move the Fiber Optic Gyro along with this "linear fiber" (which is actually still a rotating fiber). If [1] are truly able to measure velocity, why can't they just shift the FOG on the conveyor without the elaborate loop of fiber (fig2)? This is just a fiber optic gyro with a weird geometry - ALL of the fiber in [1] fig 2 is rotating in the same clockwise rotation. [1] http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/9/2012 8:07:01 PM
NO RATINGS
It is disappointing to read your comments about work of R. Wang, et al, since the essence of their finding is resides in the important discovery that the constant velocity linear motion is as discernible as motion of rotation even in the rigid frame of Sagnac. To call the work on Generalized Sagnac -“a fiber optic gyro with a weird geometry” is almost the same as to call a nuclear reactor – “just a tea kettle with a weird geometry”.

bpaddock
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
bpaddock   11/9/2012 1:44:26 PM
NO RATINGS
"Standing Wave Sensor" by E.W. Silvertooth and S.F. Jacobs, Applied Optics /Vol. 22. #9/1 May 1983. "Experimental detection of the ether" - E.W. Silvertooth Speculations in Science and Technology, 10, No 1, 3-7, (1986) [See also "On the Silvertooth Experiment" - Harold Aspden - ibid.] Abstract: Michelson-Morley type experiments are shown to be non-sequitors because their logic fails to take into account the relationship between wavelength and propagation velocity. An experimental demonstration of anisotropy in wavelength is described.

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/9/2012 4:46:41 PM
NO RATINGS
You are absolutely right suggesting that people should “read some modern experiments”.

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/9/2012 4:10:59 PM
NO RATINGS
Common Statement by the Author: Some recent remarks on the article demonstrate serious misconception and/or misapplication of fundamental concepts of physics. The following information is provided to clear any ambiguities on the subject. Since we are talking about measurements inside of the object in motion, you have to visualize yourself and a gizmo that consists of a photon, emitter, and receiver traveling with constant velocity motion along of an ‘X’ axis. The emitter and the receiver are set perpendicular to the velocity of motion. Under Newtonian law of physics a force of inertia F=mu is applied to every particle and every object in the system in motion, except massless photons. -Hence, photons that are emitted in the system in motion travel independent from all parts of inertial system including their own emitter/receiver.- By the time the photon will reach the receiver, whole system will move and the photon will strike the receiver in the place which correlates to the position of the system in the time when that photon was emitted, providing the reference point of the system’s position in the past. Knowing the past and the present positions of the system we may interpolate the speed and the direction of motion of the system. Please notice that the highlighted statement is nothing more than the Second Postulate of Einstein’s ‘Special Relativity’. Regarding the statements of absolute frame of references. It has to be taken into account that since there are no preferred frames of reference, all measurements performed by the above described methods are done in relative terms only. There is nothing new in practical applications of the uniqueness of light. It was widely utilized by Michelson, Sagnac, R. Wang and others in their classical experiments. We took it one step further, applying the noted uniqueness of light to the measurements of all types of motions.

David Brown
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
David Brown   11/12/2012 8:23:47 PM
NO RATINGS
You seem to have skipped a few classes on relativity and basic particle physics. A photon has no /rest/ mass. But the photon is not at rest. It is moving, and has energy - so E=mc^2 gives us its mass. And so if your gadget is moving at a constant velocity, the photon will move directly from the transmitter to the receiver, regardless of the velocity. This is the very foundation of relativity. And while all scientists will agree that relativity is only a theory, and may be disproved, I am confident that if the effect you are describing here were real, it would have been noticed a long time ago. This whole idea is about as realistic as "Blacklight Power" - just enough pseudo-scientific nonsense to baffle non-physicists, combined with wonderful potential benefits to inspire such greed in investors that rational scepticism is forgotten. It's a scam to con money out of naive investors.

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/12/2012 10:14:30 PM
NO RATINGS
Let me repeat it again – since a photon, as a member of Boson family, has no mass therefore it does not follow the rules of Newtonian physics. Hence the inertial force that imposes any mass bearing objects, regardless of their size, to move alone with the object in motion (at any speed including constant velocity) does not apply to the massless photon! The following message for you and others homegrown theoreticians of physics!!! The theoretical foundation of our development was reviewed by famous Professor Hans Bethe and Edward Teller and got their unshakable approval in writing. So, all these interpretations of laws of physics and nasty remarks just show the luck of knowledge on the subject you are so compelled to express by your ignorance. FYI- In publishing this article we have no interest to “con money” run “scam” and etc… the goal of the article is to provide real professionals on the field with reliable information on this revolutionary development.

David Brown
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
David Brown   11/13/2012 2:01:34 PM
NO RATINGS
Photons /are/ bosons - but there are plenty of bosons that /do/ have mass. In fact, all bosons except photons (and perhaps gravitons) have rest mass. And as I noted earlier, photons have no /rest/ mass - but they do have an effective mass due to their energy, and are affected by intertial systems (look up gravitational lensing for an example). It is quite impressive that you had your work reviewed by Professors Bethe and Teller, considering they died in 2005 and 2003 respectively, and both were well into their nineties at the time. Did you use a ouija board to get their opinions? We live in a world with Wikipedia. You can't just make up drivel by combining a few scientific terms and name-dropping, and expect people to believe you. Even readers who don't know this stuff already can easily look it up and see that you are talking nonsense. Have a look at this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Contributions_to_the_mass_of_a_system

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/13/2012 3:21:03 PM
NO RATINGS
Ignorance is a bliss! Yes our work on the subject was that old. My initial contact with the Professor began back in 1987 regarding some point on QED and continues about a year before his death. My contact with Dr. Teller was done in 1999. And yes it is done in writing! Please continue to learn from the Wikipedia and find some another subject that may awake your positive attitude.

AlNav
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
AlNav   11/10/2012 8:24:14 PM
NO RATINGS
It is odd that you mention Michelson, because most electrical engineers will recognize that the Michelson-Morley experiment was surprising because it DID NOT detect the motion of the Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment It would be interesting to see a video of this device working when the plot in figure 1 was obtained. It would also be interesting to know what the numbers in the plot mean, and why the data points are in a spiral? And for certain purposes... a nuclear reactor *is* a tea-kettle with a weird geometry... Best Regards

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/11/2012 12:21:31 AM
NO RATINGS
Regarding M-M experiment I would suggest that you will search for Michelson-Gale. As it stated in the Article "Fig.1 shows the dual summa vector oscilloscope type diagram". Hope you know about summa-vector type diagrams of motion. We will definitely provide more in detailed information on the development if such information will be cleared for publication.

AlNav
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
AlNav   11/11/2012 6:58:49 PM
NO RATINGS
Well, I look forward to that information, when it is cleared for publication. Regarding Michelson-Gale, based on a little research I just did, that was a demonstration of the detection of rotation. Which is an acceleration, since it is not a constant velocity (speed and direction). Could you point me to any papers showing replication of the R. Wang results in the last 9 years? Pardon my ignorance, but I am not familiar with "summa-vector" diagrams of motion, and a quick Google search didn't return any results with that exact phrasing. Typically an oscilloscope display will give some sense of the scale being measured, and all of the oscilloscopes I've used only measure voltage. I understand that voltage can be a measure of some other physical parameter, but it is typically up to the observer to determine the "translation" of voltage to physical property. Best Regards!

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/12/2012 3:08:28 PM
NO RATINGS
Acceleration is a change of speed; constant angular velocity is precisely that- constant angular velocity is. To measure summa vector you have to have a sophisticated memory scope that not only mark the spot, but produces trigonometrical functions like finding square root of summa square of X and Y. I did spent some time working with your remarks but I am sorry that this would be my final reply on your req. I wish you all the best in further searches and info gatherings.

Theophilus_
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
Theophilus_   11/13/2012 2:00:02 AM
NO RATINGS
Val, I believe that the effect you are describing is real. The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale experiments prove the same reality. Also, you would not have gone to the effort of applying for US patent 8213023 if you were not observing reality. My question is based on the statement at http://www.space-navigation.com/2294.html that "due to photon’s massless nature, it does not inherit properties of any inertial system". Surely, if light does not inherit properties of any inertial system, this implies that light has its own unique frame of reference?

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/13/2012 3:22:55 PM
NO RATINGS
It is a good question. In some books you may find positive opinion about existence of a non-inertial frame of reference. I don’t think so and here is why. An inertial frame of reference is “tacitly assumed co-ordinate system in which we would specify the position of the particle from instance to instance… and further, a means of measuring time…” Georg Joos “Theoretical Physics”. Such frame is impossible to establish for light, since every measure of distance at speed of light is collapsing to zero and time is going into infinity. Thanks

David Brown
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
David Brown   11/13/2012 6:42:09 PM
NO RATINGS
The Sagnac effect measures angular rotation - which is acceleration. Acceleration can be measured - that's easy enough. But every experiment on the subject in the last hundred years has conclusively demonstrated that you cannot detect linear velocity like this - it is the whole basis of relativity. And there are vast numbers of completely pointless patents out there. IBM has a patent on faster-than-light travel, and there are dozens of patents on devices for letting you kick your own backside. The EETimes editors should be making use of them for publishing this article - it greatly lowers the website's standing.

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/13/2012 8:01:25 PM
NO RATINGS
Every comment that you have made so far demonstrates in-your-face attitude and total lack of knowledge in the area you are trying to explore. This is my final reply on your comments and I hope that the editor will be aware of your inadequacy and behavior that is inappropriate for a subscriber of such professional magazine.

David Brown
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
David Brown   11/13/2012 10:07:27 PM
NO RATINGS
I'll happily agree that I've not been particularly polite here. I've called it as I see it, rather directly and to-the-point. And you have been very patient at repeating the same arguments. But what do you want me to say? Should I commend you on how politely you regurgitate nonsense? I would /love/ your idea to be true. I fully agree that a non-inertial measurement of velocity from within the moving object would be a revolution. But there are so many obvious flaws that I am surprised anyone thinks this is possible. I have tried to point out some of them, but was met with babble (photons are bosons and therefore have no mass!). If you would like, I can give you an expansive list of the more obvious effects from the inertial effects on photons. But I fully understand if you don't want to communicate any more here. As for the editor of this article, I suspect he (or she) is cringing in a corner and hoping that this whole article will somehow just go away. To him (or her), I'd say that mistakes do happen - but maybe do a bit more reality checking before publishing next time. Mind you, this has been an entertaining article!

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/13/2012 3:22:19 PM
NO RATINGS
It is a good question. In some books you may find positive opinion about existence of a non-inertial frame of reference. I don’t think so and here is why. An inertial frame of reference is “tacitly assumed co-ordinate system in which we would specify the position of the particle from instance to instance… and further, a means of measuring time…” Georg Joos “Theoretical Physics”. Such frame is impossible to establish for light, since every measure of distance at speed of light is collapsing to zero and time is going into infinity. Thanks

Theophilus_
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
Theophilus_   11/14/2012 2:35:14 AM
NO RATINGS
Has anyone ever performed the Michelson-Morley experiment on a non-stationary platform, e.g. in an aeroplane flying at a constant velocity?

David Brown
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
David Brown   11/14/2012 7:26:37 AM
NO RATINGS
Of course the M-M experiment was performed on a non-stationary platform - at the equator you are moving at 463 m/s around the earth, at around 30 km/s around the sun, the solar system is moving at around 200 km/s around the centre of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is moving at about 300 km/s within the Local Group, and about 500 km/s compared to the cosmic microwave background. The M-M experiment is not suitable for something like an aeroplane (though related experiments were done in balloons in the twenties) - any vibration would mess it up. But there have been huge numbers of different kinds of experiments demonstrating and confirming relativity that have been done in different places, moving at different speeds relative to the earth's surface.

Theophilus_
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
Theophilus_   11/14/2012 10:48:12 AM
NO RATINGS
Maybe the M-M experiment should be performed in a spacecraft orbiting the earth. This would surely be free of vibration. It would be interesting to see the results.

David Brown
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
David Brown   11/14/2012 11:34:53 AM
NO RATINGS
Why would it be interesting? What do you really think it would show? The M-M experiment was designed to confirm that the speed of light is the same in every direction (well, two perpendicular directions). It was made to disprove the theory of "ether" as a physical medium for light waves. It confirmed that the speed of light is independent of direction (and hence there is no ether), to within the margin of experimental error. Later experiments have greatly improved on the accuracy of M-M. All sorts of experiments have further confirmed the theory of relativity in all sorts of circumstances. There are still plenty of open questions in physics, of course - combining relativity and quantum mechanics is the big one, along with questions about the constancy of fundamental constants (such as "c") throughout the history of the universe. But you can be sure that the speed of light measured by M-M experiments will be independent of direction, regardless of where you do the experiment. So taking an M-M experiment into space is as useful as taking a multimeter, a battery, and some resistors just to check that Ohm's law works in orbit.

vofptc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
vofptc   11/14/2012 2:50:03 PM
NO RATINGS
I hate to intrude into your friendly exchange and turn the subject of the article into the colloquium on physics that I ran with my students long time ago, but there is a couple of thoughts. Firstly, there are no problems between Relativity (Special and General) and Quantum Mechanics; there are some discrepancies between Classic and Quantum Electrodynamics. Secondly, before call M-M a failure you have to realize what this experiment did prove. You may be surprised by your findings. Anyway, if there will be more discussion on this subject it would be more productive to move it away from this article and into some other media like twitter, and etc...

David Brown
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
David Brown   11/14/2012 3:12:44 PM
NO RATINGS
I did not mean to be specific about the issues surrounding the combination between relativity and quantum mechanics - I know there are some things that work fine, and some things that have big unanswered questions. I think that is enough detail here (unless you want to go into depth). And I don't consider M-M to be a failure - I can't see how you read that into my posts. It attempted to measure the ether drag - by failing to do so, it succeeded in disproving the ether theory. So it was very much a success. The comments section here is primarily for discussing the article in question - and is therefore the best place for such discussions. I agree that more detailed discussions of QED or relativity would be best moved elsewhere - but I am not sure if there is a worse possible choice than twitter! After all, it is not a discussion for short and concise posts. A more suitable forum might be a newsgroup like sci.physics.relativity

Colli
User Rank
Rookie
re: Developing non-inertial navigation devices
Colli   12/13/2012 10:26:02 AM
NO RATINGS
So, is it just me, or is this gibberish?

Radio
NEXT UPCOMING BROADCAST
EE Times Senior Technical Editor Martin Rowe will interview EMC engineer Kenneth Wyatt.
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Flash Poll