-
Cahill's detectors were not operating in zener breakdown mode but were instead looking at the reverse leakage of zener diodes below the breakdown voltage. He uses 3.3V zeners with well under 1.5V applied. The details are here:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0387v2.pdf
At a guess, the leakage current would be around the level to put the voltage across the 10K resistor at about 50% of the battery voltage with a single diode. With multiple diodes, you could easily get over 1V across the resistor.
The effect is probably negligible on 6-7.5V reference zener+avalanche diodes at the breakdown voltage.
If Prof. Cahill's effect is real, it would be interesting. I will probably give it a go, just for fun. I found another paper that tried to verify Cahill's results but couldn't:
http://www.ptep-online.com/2017/PP-49-10.PDF
I put it down to the fact that the Laws of Physics in California are probably different to the Laws of Physics in Australia.
-
I think the point was the video claims the orientation of the zeners within the detector and the orientation of the multiple detectors generating correlated noise are what measure the anisotropic "ether" in that presenters theory.
At this point I have to confess that I haven't watched the whole video just the indicated section.
We know that there is no Luminous Aether (Michelson–Morley experiment) but we do know that we live in a quantum soup of virtual particles that, in extreme gravitational fields, produces Hawking radiation. In theory some Hawking radiation ought to be created in any gravitational field and, in theory, that ought to produce some anisotropic effects in a gravitational field. Whether those effects are measurable in another question entirely - in everyday gravitational fields the particle production rate will be so vanishingly small as to be effectively zero.
Certainly, any effect would be smaller than any of the other effects you can measure in a gravitational field. You can certainly measure a difference in the frequency of crystal oscillators with respect to the orientation of a gravitational field (Dave demonstrated this in a video if I recall correctly). I see no reason that a small difference in noise production by semiconductor lattices with respect to gravity isn't a possible effect, and possibly measurable, but I can see no obvious mechanism by which it would yield any change in noise correlation but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility without a lot of hard thinking and experimentation. However, any putative noise correlation effects wouldn't look like his purported ones with their neat 1 ns delay (did he check the electrical lengths of his cables with a TDR?).
So, gravitational fields, not space itself or the Aether are the likely source of any effects measured that aren't the result of experimental error or magical thinking. -
Hello,
what has the bad thermal design of the LM399 to do with that weird theory?
with best regards
Andreas
Well,QuoteZENER DIODES QUANTUM DETECTORS DETECTING SPACE DIRECTLY
obviously.
He haven't even touched on the indirect detecting of space, go figure.
I think the point was the video claims the orientation of the zeners within the detector and the orientation of the multiple detectors generating correlated noise are what measure the anisotropic "ether" in that presenters theory.
Ok, i've missed "correlated", interesting to see if there is some truth to this..
-
That experiment conveniently ignores several effects - for instance resistor noise, additional leakage currents from 'scope protector front ends, EMI effects, etc. I don't recall seeing that he described the resistors being used (I didn't watch the entire show); it seems like he might assume all resistors are the same. PWW? BMF? Film?
I can make two "detectors" and see all sorts of "correlated" effects just by having similar equipment switched on in two rooms. Turn off the lights, move to a quieter testing location, and suddenly no noise correlation. Or maybe I see a correlation, but I notice a lightning storm 5000km away, and both detectors are picking up the same storm EMI ripples - traveling around and through Earth. Lightning storms come and go with night and day. I did not see him check for that effect.
Plus the fact if you have 'scopes running at similar sample rates looking at any noise...look at the data long enough and the peaks and valleys start lining up. Like old CRT analog TV's tuned to an unused channel: Stare at the static long enough and you can see anything you want.
The fact is any crystal lattice is affected by gravity, heat flows, etc. Those effects are well known and not too mysterious using existing physics knowledge. If two detectors are placed in the same orientation we might see similar noise - and by the same token if we flip one detector's orientation - do we see more or less or the same correlation?
I'm just not buying this at this point - not until the experiment removes more variables. It would certainly be interesting to see if the experiment can be duplicated, but judging by the first attempt at duplication I'm not holding my breath.
-
Gravitational Wave Metrology - GWM ?
-
...And by the way, look at his "Detector" circuit. Add the 'scope input capacitance and wire loops. Let me know what you see as a basic RF detector/demod. at the 'scope input.
Mysterious physics or just another radio/lightning stroke receiver? That's what more refined experiments might look at.
-
We know that there is no Luminous Aether (Michelson–Morley experiment) ...
Uhmmmm... no. The Michelson-Morley experiment was flawed, but even so, it produced a very small (near the noise floor) positive result. The experiment was later repeated by Dayton Miller, and using a more sensitive instrument, he obtained very positive proof of an Aether. He then died before he could publish, and the university tried to bury his work, but his assistant was able to save enough of it that we now know that he was successful. Shortly after this discovery (or rediscovery), Einstein started to change his attitude towards the existence of an Aether-- and you can read about this in transcripts of various conferences he spoke at. Tesla was right, and Einstein was not exactly correct.
You're conveniently ignoring the current existence of laser interferometers (used to detect gravitational waves) that incidently repeat the Michelson-Morley experiment on a daily basis. LIGO is 360 times physically bigger than the Michelson-Morley interferometer and 144,000 times logically bigger (because it runs the light beams through the path multiple times). If Michelson and Morley had "produced a very small (near the noise floor) positive result", LIGO would produce a massive one.
I'm all for "question everything" but when there's overwhelming evidence that the orthodox position is correct (to current measurement limits) then alternative theories are best left on the new-age mysticism sites like the one you cited newdawnmagazine.com. Here's their self-produced tag cloud, does that strike you as a likely reliable source for a physics story?
-
"Experimentum summus judex." (Loosely translated: Experiment trumps theory.)
could'nt have said it better !
best regards.
-zia
-
Note that is was of Mr. Miller's opinion that the Aether is "entrained" by the Earth, and so he conducted his experiment at at high altitude. I doubt that the LIGO experiment is being conducted at high altitude-- "apples and oranges" so they say.
What you just said is what I was eluding to-- that many people have closed minds to alternative theories-- often to the detriment of mankind.
In addition, when we are talking about a theory: "Even in the face of overwhelming positive evidence, if there is one piece of data that is not in agreement with that theory, then that theory is not correct, and you must develop a new theory that better explains the data." -- Richard Feynman
"Experimentum summus judex." (Loosely translated: Experiment trumps theory.)
Can't disagree with that final part, and the LIGO experiment, with a sensitivity of 10-19m would seem to be the Ace of Spades. If altitude is a factor in the equation then I think that kind of sensitivity would be enough to still detect the effect of the aether at any altitude.BTW-- I used to work at E.G.&G. "Special Projects" (Area-51). I've "seen things" that would cause any physicist to doubt their assumptions-- and that's all I can say about that. The Aether is real, it has properties, it's existence and properties are fundamentally important to physics; and the person that manages to figure it all out (and get published) will win a Nobel prize.
As to the rest, it isn't exactly well published experimental evidence if you can't talk about for fear that the FBI will be at your door in short order afterwards. I'm not saying that you are definitely confabulating but I hope you understand when I say that it does rather beggar belief when someone who claims to have worked at Area-51 and quotes physics articles from new-age sites claims that our current understanding of physics, which has good experimental evidence, is wrong in favour of a previously experimentally discredited theory.
The orthodox is rarely 100% correct, and all scientific knowledge is technically provisional, but on this occasion I'm quite happy to trust the orthodox over the outré.
-
What, YOU, worrying?
I've already said enough. I want to keep breathing... -
Current orthodoxy recognises space is expanding faster than the speed of light.
If nothing can move faster than the speed of light... ether ( fabric of space ) must be nothing. -
While were still at hijacking this thread:
Im interested in detecting EMI peaks and noise, be it trough lightning storms or through the UFO-starting in Indiana Jones 4: What would be the best way to detect those spikes on a low budget? Simply set up a AM-radio or are there already suitable SDR-boards which also detect lower frequency spikes <1MHz and are sensitive enough?
Would be just a fun experiment to see if i can detect the elevator in my building and the switching of the flat-lighting. I already replaced the LED-bulbs in my measurement-room, use line-filters and changed every used SMPS against linear supplies. -
Hijacked thread indeed - but since you asked -
At first glance has nothing to do with a 10V reference, but everything to do with studying "correlated noise events" on a grand scale.
http://en.blitzortung.org/cover_your_area.php
Check out the real time map and project schematics.
In a nutshell - If you're looking for E-field ripples from closer T-storms, your antenna is a length of wire. For Mag fields that travel through and around Earth, just about any circuit loop that encompasses a non-zero area is a potential lightning detector antenna. Add some gain with an op-amp and some filtering. Add a GPS to timestamp interesting noise pulse events that look most like a lightning stroke.
Project users from around the world send their data to a central cloud server and let it crunch the numbers - and then a few seconds later you have a near real time lightning map. This is a Time of Arrival detection system that works best when lots of users are participating.
In other words - once you've "correlated" your noise pulses with hundreds of other users on Blitzortung - the end result is a fairly accurate map of lightning strokes around the world. Sometimes a stroke event will trigger a few detectors, sometimes you'll see a bunch of detectors contribute to the stroke position solution Every detected stroke is logged for later analysis.
What does this have to do with measuring References?
Once you start using a lightning detector, then you start keeping an eye on that local signal output while you're taking sensitive measures in the lab....and then you start to realize that some of your noise you see on your Vref isn't exactly random. Somewhere around then you also realize how far away that storm is that's tickling your circuit. If you're timestamping your data carefully, then sometimes your buddy halfway around the world can easily be observing the same noise events on his data. It happens, ESPECIALLY when you're chasing low ppm or very sensitive measures.
This is a type of worldwide interfering noise source that requires no mystery physics of any kind to complete the explanation.
-
BTW-- I used to work at E.G.&G. "Special Projects" (Area-51). I've "seen things" that would cause any physicist to doubt their assumptions-- and that's all I can say about that. The Aether is real, it has properties, it's existence and properties are fundamentally important to physics; and the person that manages to figure it all out (and get published) will win a Nobel prize.
Oh!! Do tell us more!!!
I've already said enough. I want to keep breathing...
It's too late now, there are some men in black suits, waiting for you downstairs ...
-
When one of us is receiving our Nobel Prize for Physics for destroying Relativity, he/she will probably have to credit fmaimon for starting a thread on LM399 voltage references. Might have to call it the LM399 10V Reference Theory of Unrelativity.BTW-- I used to work at E.G.&G. "Special Projects" (Area-51). I've "seen things" that would cause any physicist to doubt their assumptions-- and that's all I can say about that. The Aether is real, it has properties, it's existence and properties are fundamentally important to physics; and the person that manages to figure it all out (and get published) will win a Nobel prize.
Oh!! Do tell us more!!!
I've already said enough. I want to keep breathing...
It's too late now, there are some men in black suits, waiting for you downstairs ... -
Hello,
The circuit shown here: http://www.linear.com/product/LM399 apears seems simple, some recommendation to build or "improve" stability? Is missing something?
Thanks!! -
Hello,
The circuit shown here: http://www.linear.com/product/LM399 apears seems simple, some recommendation to build or "improve" stability? Is missing something?
Thanks!!
The circuit is very basic. It can be improved a bit by getting the current to drive the LM399 to a large part from the 10 V output instead of the 15 V supply. Another point worth adding is a RC filter to reduce the higher frequency noise of the LM399. The higher frequency noise is not that critical in some applications, but it is relatively easy to reduce it. Stability against capacitive loading might also be an issue sometimes. From that point on it is mainly about having stable resistors. -
It can be improved a bit by getting the current to drive the LM399 to a large part from the 10 V output instead of the 15 V supply. Another point worth adding is a RC filter to reduce the higher frequency noise of the LM399.
I'm familiar with bootstrapping the zener current, but have a question about the low-pass filtering. Would that be best at the input to the op-amp (to avoid gaining up the noise), or after it (at the expense of giving the reference a higher output impedance) or between the op-amp and a second op-amp for drive? And if the third option is chosen, would a higher-order active filter be a better choice? -
It does not make a significant difference between filtering before or after amplification. Between the LM399 and the OP it is very easy to implement a simple RC filter: e.g. a resistor in the 100 Ohms to 1 K range and a 100nF-1µF capacitor. So this is the obvious place for some filtering.
The noise level of the LM399 is around 10 times the noise level of typical precision OPs. There is no practical way to filter out the really low frequency noise. So the useful amount of filtering is limited to what is simple. As an alternative to complicated filtering there is the option to use a second LM399.
Usually one would avoid using a second OP in the path to reduce extra errors. So things like a more capacitive tolerant output would normally be done with the same OP as the 7 to 10 V step. -
Please, be gentle in comments!
My knowledge is inversely proportional to my enthusiasm for accuracy.
And my first contact with KiCad, I learned this weekend watching videos on YouTube ...
I'm still going to put the tracks and I ask, would it work?
Edit: Second attachment... DRC is okay! Noise, who knows?
-
Heater must use separate wires that go to PSU.
You need kelvin connection to zener output too. -
Heater must use separate wires that go to PSU.
You need kelvin connection to zener output too.
If I got the message:
-
Yea, something like that. I'd go for additional tap (thin wires is ok) for voltage sense. So you have 6 wires going out of the LM399
.
-
Yea, something like that. I'd go for additional tap (thin wires is ok) for voltage sense. So you have 6 wires going out of the LM399
.
Thanks a lot for your feedback! I will try to improve the tracks distribution, a good design is important too!
I need to master Kicad yet...
Edit: Few track adjustments, more clean.