Results for Phase 1-B

(11-12-07)

Phase 1-B Results to Date

Phase 2 is still in planning stages at this time.  I am still conducting what I consider follow-up work to phase 1, so I’ll call these trials Phase 1-B.

I burned out camera 2 in an attempt to power it using a variable regulated power supply.  Afterward, I allowed the apparatus to sit idle for four and a half months before taking the experiment up again.  During that time, I did some additional research looking for other conventional explanations of the observed phenomenon.  With that research in hand, and with a new camera (camera 3), I decided that there were enough plausible explanations in addition to what I had previously investigated to warrant an extension of phase 1 of my experiment.  So, I have performed some additional trials, each with a significant change to the apparatus.

Trial 17 was incomplete due to battery failure, but it did confirm that Camera 3 could be made to work with my setup.  It was conducted using rechargeable batteries, and showed that they could work but exposed an important limitation – temperature.  Nickel metal hydride batteries only have a voltage of 1.25V in comparison to the 1.5 V of alkaline batteries.  Significant drops in temperature can further decrease this voltage to the point where the camera goes into power save mode rather than taking pictures.  Thus, use of rechargeable batteries required better temperature control.  Since I intended to use an air conditioned environment for portions of phase 2, this was not a hardship.

I have also abandoned use of target marks to determine orientation and am instead using an orienteering compass attached to the mount.  This arrangement allows the entire apparatus to move across the floor from one location to another between measurements without being subjected to the same floor slope at each angle measurement.  This allows me to stop using a fixed motion pattern, which should reduce systematic errors due to repetitive changes in the support beam elevation.  Also, beginning with Trial 21, I have shifted my orientation measurement system to 0 degrees at due north rather than due east.  This was done to match the system being used by Dr. Lance Osadchey.  Measurements from trials prior to Trial 21 can be correct by shifting the measurement angle 90 degrees.

Trial 18 was performed in an air conditioned environment adequate for the rechargeable batteries.  For this trial, the support beam was removed from the mount and laid directly on a pile carpet rather than suspended.  Although it ran to conclusion with two complete turns, this trial was inconclusive because I discovered at the end that the laser cell was dragging on the carpet during rotation with enough force to wear off the baffle.  I must assume that this unaccounted load skewed the measurements.

Trials 19 and 20 were conducted using a padded mount rather than a suspended mount, which lifted both the camera and laser cells clear of the supporting floor.  Trial 20 conducted immediately following Trial 19 and was intended to be a control for Trial 19.  The laser was inverted about the light path between the two trials in order to check for a reversal of drift.  Unfortunately, the data from these two trials appears to have been lost in copying.

Trial 21 and Trial 22 were a repeat of Trials 19 and 20.  Unlike Trials 19 and 20, these were conducted between 1:00 pm and 2:00 pm in order to check the magnitude of the measured effect at the same sidereal time as previous measurements made in June.  Trial 21 showed a similar magnitude to that observed for Trials 15 and 16, after correction for increased image size.  The laser interference pattern was inverted by inverting the laser, as expected, and an additional interference pattern was noted that is probably due to diffraction in the CCD chip of my new camera.  Trial 22 showed drift in the opposite direction from Trial 21, leading to the conclusion that the observed drift is related to the laser and not to thermal deformation of the beam.  This strongly suggests that the cause of the observed drift is laser drift – changes in the interference pattern of the laser due to a drift in the laser frequency and/or thermal deformation of the laser diode, which moves the location of the interference pattern’s peak, creating the appearance of motion across the image field. 

I am now working on the assumption that the predominant cause of drift in my apparatus is laser drift, rather than deformation of the support beam.

The data provided by Trials 22 is too noisy to confirm that the signal of interest remained in phase from Trial 21 to Trial 22.  Camera 3 appears have significantly more image noise than Camera 2, requiring an increased number of turns per trial.  A repetition of the controlled experiment performed in Trials 21 and 22 will be necessary.

Trail 23 was conducted immediately following Trial 22, and was also intended as a control for Trial 21.  For this trial, the same laser orientation as Trial 22 was used.  The support beam was turned at a right angle in its cradle about the light path axis, to rest on its side for the trial.  This was done to estimate the laser deflection due to shifts in the beam weight.  The observed deflection was substantial, but was not enough to bring the central peak out of the image, allowing Trial 23 to be conducted without recalibration.  Thus, the change in deflection along each axis vs. Trial 22 can be determined by simple subtraction.  From this, the deflection due to change in support beam angle can be determined with greater accuracy than my current estimate.

Analysis of Trials 22 and 23 indicates a static vertical deflection of approximately 100 pixels, or about 300 microns.  This is a reasonable match to the estimated value of 260 microns based on calculations of expected bending. 

Lance and I arranged a simultaneous measurement at 9:15 pm CST on 11-5-07, which was well removed from the sidereal time of Trials 21 and 22.  I designated my contribution Trial 24.  Trial 24 was conducted using the same padded mount as trials 21, 22, and 23.  This control experiment used 3 turns (4 on my part, to account for a last second recalibration).  As predicted by Dr. Osadchey, the magnitude of the effect I measured did increase vs. measurements made near 0h sidereal time.  We found we needed to correct for two computational artifacts: We were using different coordinate systems – Cartesian vs. MS Paint – and I was forcing both adjusted x and y coordinates to 0 value at the same angle, obscuring the phase data.  The correction was easily accomplished, but will need to be applied retroactively to my previous trials. But by far the most interesting result was that our results indicate that our measurements are in phase.  Admittedly, there is a +/- 30 degree error in our measurements, but the results are encouraging.

Our stations are 1400 miles apart, and our measurements are in phase to within the limit of our experimental accuracy.

Further work is necessary to improve that accuracy, but it is my opinion that there is ample reason to continue this experiment.  The results of Lance’s 11-5-07 trial and my Trial 24 control strongly indicate that this signal is generated by a physical effect which is both external to our apparatus and of approximately constant direction at both of our geographic locations. 

We’ve also agreed on a working name for this effect we’re measuring, provided it turns out to be a real phenomenon: The Osadchey Effect.  We have declined to call it the Osadchey-Miller Effect, because, although I personally think Dayton Miller was the first to describe it, his description was fundamentally flawed.  (I hope not to be making a similar statement about my own work in the coming months.) 

Our working hypothesis is that this is an aberration of the laser light itself.  We have found no consistent evidence of a known physical phenomenon (bending, thermal deformation, laser drift, etc.) that can account for our results by its effect on the mechanism of our instruments rather than the laser light.

I no longer claim that this represents an absolute reference.  The magnitude appears too large to be universal without creating visible astronomical effects.  However, it is looking more probable that an accelerating reference frame would be required to produce the observed aberration in a fashion consistent with the theory of relativity.  The current formulation of General Relativity does not provide for any accelerating reference frame that explains the observed effect.  Alternately, Dr. Osadchey’s hypothesis of a linear displacement could be correct – but general relativity can’t account for that, either.  Thus, either our hypothesis is incorrect, or General Relativity is incorrect. 

So, I am reversing my position again: Our results to date represent a direct challenge to the theory of General Relativity.

-