[time-nuts] Re: Gravity Meter was:Re: Scandium plus hard x-rays

[Brooke Clarke]

Hi Rick:

There are a number of ways to measure gravity, but the best that I know of is the Super conducting type.
One of these was used to cancel the Earth's tide motion of a telescope used for ranging retro-reflectors on the Moon.  
i.e. good enough to detect feet/inches of movement of granite rock.
https://prc68.com/I/GravityMeters.shtml#Super_Conducting

Tom's experiment with moving an atomic clock would give you the a rough translation factor between gravity and time, if 
like me you're not conversant with Einstein's equations.
My guess is that the above gravity meter would be good to much better than a part in 10,000.

I don't think GPS can be used since placing a GPS antenna on an atomic clock would probably result in no signal.  And 
running an atomic clock in a location with a clear view of the sky may  not be the best location interms of clock 
accuracy.  Something Tom maybe could comment on.

-- 
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
https://www.PRC68.com
axioms:
1. The extent to which you can fix or improve something will be limited by how well you understand how it works.
2. Everybody, with no exceptions, holds false beliefs.

-------- Original Message --------
> A nuclear clock may be less susceptible to various perturbations, but
> will still have a frequency that is a function of gravity, as per
> relativity.
>
> Has a way of measuring gravity been developed that would be accurate
> enough to make such a nuclear clock as accurate as this article is
> saying?
>
> ---
> Rick Karlquist
> N6RK
>
> On 2023-10-02 11:18, shouldbe q931 via time-nuts wrote:
>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06491-w
>>
>> "We foresee the development of a Sc-based nuclear clock in the future"
>>
>> However
>>
>> "Every X-ray pulse train with an energy of about 65 mJ heats the 25-μm
>> thick Sc-metal target by an estimated temperature of about 100 K. The
>> heat conductivity of Sc metal is low--15.8 W m-1 K-1, comparable to
>> that of stainless steel. Radiation damage to the target is thus
>> inevitable. Special measures were taken to avoid damage, including
>> water and air cooling, defocusing of the beam (the beam footprint was
>> about 2 mm2) and periodic replacement of the target. Two targets had
>> to be replaced in the course of the experiment because of partial
>> radiation damage."
>>
>> Methinks that's a fairly critical issue (-:
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Arne
>> _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>> To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave at lists.febo.com
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at lists.febo.com
> To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave at lists.febo.com