Jung and Jungians
View allAll Photos Tagged Analytics
Going back home in the bus. This picture is also marked as Creative Commons so you can use it in your websites etc. Let's see how this experiment goes.
Thank you all for your appreciation.
Follow me on:
© 2016 Jordi Corbilla - All Rights Reserved.
Do not use any of my images without permission.
*Note that groups and albums are machine handled by Flickr Photo Analytics app and we apologise for any inconveniences caused.
Generated By Midjourney V6
---
**Prompt :**
> Portrait cinématographique hyperréaliste d’une jeune femme intellectuelle à l’allure élégante et intemporelle, regard perçant et introspectif, yeux bleu profond éclairés par une lumière douce et dramatique. Son visage est composé de facettes géométriques complexes, style mosaïque cubiste moderne, mêlant tons chauds et froids : ambre, ocre, bleu nuit, turquoise et touches dorées.
>
> Cheveux courts et ondulés aux reflets cuivrés et violacés, coiffés avec un mouvement naturel et sophistiqué. Elle porte des lunettes fines et discrètes, un col victorien raffiné, un nœud papillon artistique et des bijoux délicats évoquant l’érudition et la créativité.
>
> L’arrière-plan est une composition abstraite riche et profonde : feuilles manuscrites flottant dans l’air, pages de livres anciennes, schémas, symboles scientifiques et typographiques, suspendus dans un espace quasi onirique. Le décor évoque une bibliothèque mentale, un univers de pensée et de savoir en mouvement.
>
> Éclairage cinématographique volumétrique, contrastes maîtrisés, profondeur de champ subtile, rendu ultra-net 8K, textures extrêmement détaillées, peau réaliste, reflets lumineux précis. Ambiance intellectuelle, poétique et mystérieuse, mélange d’art classique et de modernité numérique, style peinture numérique hyperréaliste, concept art de film, chef-d’œuvre visuel, qualité musée, atmosphère dramatique et inspirante.
---
**Prompt:**
> Hyper-realistic cinematic portrait of an intellectual young woman with an elegant, timeless presence, sharp and introspective gaze, deep blue eyes illuminated by soft, dramatic lighting. Her face is composed of intricate geometric facets, modern cubist mosaic style, blending warm and cool tones: amber, ochre, midnight blue, turquoise, and subtle golden highlights.
>
> Short, softly wavy hair with copper and violet reflections, styled naturally yet refined. She wears delicate, minimalist eyeglasses, a refined Victorian-inspired collar, an artistic bow tie, and subtle jewelry that evoke intellect, creativity, and sophistication.
>
> The background is a rich, layered abstract composition: handwritten manuscripts floating in the air, aged book pages, diagrams, scientific symbols, and typographic elements suspended in a dreamlike space. The setting resembles a mental library — a universe of thought, knowledge, and imagination in motion.
>
> Cinematic volumetric lighting, controlled contrast, subtle depth of field, ultra-sharp 8K render, extremely detailed textures, realistic skin, precise light reflections. Intellectual, poetic, and mysterious atmosphere, blending classical art with modern digital aesthetics, hyper-realistic digital painting, film concept art, museum-quality masterpiece, dramatic and inspiring mood.
---
--ar 3:4
--v 6
--style raw
--s 250
--chaos 8
--q 2
One of my street captures during my trip to Lisbon.
Thank you all for your appreciation.
Follow me on:
© 2017 Jordi Corbilla - All Rights Reserved.
Do not use any of my images without permission.
*Note that groups and albums are machine handled by Flickr Photo Analytics app and we apologise for any inconveniences caused.
Words of yesterday ...
Michael Figdor
And the book is on the table and the phone is in the corner of the room.
Michael asked me if the glass was half full ...
Yes, my glass is empty
as the thoughts that ran out of my mind,
The sun that burned my skin
amplified the echo
of the white wine pouring down on my moments of solitude.
Am I alone, or is the world getting to be half empty?
Is it a game and who is it to blame?
God is mad ...
And I stayed there, staring at the phone,
not reading, surfing, drinking,
just empty,
as the thoughts that I had and I couldn't catch as it was burglarized by my brain,
and as hot as the Phoenician Sun, I felt no pain.
Everything seems to be empty
I hear half truth and I drink half glasses full of lies,
I don't know what to believe anymore
Is everything full, empty or just diluted?
I think outside of the box
some kids will get chicken pox, adults are scared to death...
I make no sense, it doesn't make any sense.
I'm leaving in the past tense,
or just tense, with uninterrupted news, metrics, analytics, craziness, graphs, and the weather report.
And the glass seats half full, because the other half evaporated like thin smoke, I think Michael that it just got polluted or diluted and while I can,
let me go collect my brain, scarred on the sidewalk, I cannot think straight today.
Maybe I drank to much water.
Is it full or half full or half empty?
I don't know.
Maybe I'll know tomorrow.
MTN 06/25/2020
To Michael Figdor
Analytical Odysseys.
Предполагаемое знание феноменальных определений диссоциации, узнаваемая видимость исследований детерминированности сознания,
å utpeke øyeblikk sannheter inneholder viktige punkter for å forstå smarte brennende grunner tilfredshet innbefatter undersøkelser vitenskap,
disaccordi giustificati distinguendo contraddizioni osservazioni vuote scetticismo oggetti interi movimenti interi sistemi esistenza astratta,
ٹھوس جانکاری فوری حدود کی باتوں کا حواس خالص مختلف طریقوں سے پیچیدہ روابط اہم فصلوں کی عکاسی کے معاملات,
podstawowe uniwersalne prawdy obojętne relacje zachowujące zrozumiałe słowa uwierzytelnienia świadomość twierdzenia filozoficzne,
experiencias sensoriales que afirman sabidurías esferas profundas que devuelven sentidos dialécticos punteros del supuesto aprendizaje de la pluralidad contraria,
媒体の無関心な認識を考慮する極度の内なることは法を変えること規則を否定すること側面楽しむこと基礎変わらないこと規則否定規則依存性側面楽しさ基盤変わらない移動活動の本質的な機能動物の惨めさ.
Steve.D.Hammond.
In analytical psychology, the shadow (also known as ego-dystonic complex, repressed id, shadow aspect, or shadow archetype) is an unconscious aspect of the personality that does not correspond with the ego ideal, leading the ego to resist and project the shadow. One of the best ways to identify your shadow is to pay attention to your emotional reactions toward other people. Sure, your colleagues might be aggressive, arrogant, inconsiderate, or impatient, but if you don't have those same qualities within you, you won't have a strong reaction to their behavior.
Nellie Vin ©Photography
Prints 24 x 16 in
Mark this day as it's the day I managed to get 10 Million views on my flickr account. It's been really busy this year and I managed to get all this views in just under a year. Thanks all for your appreciation and for spending time looking at my pictures and liking them and commenting on them.
This is certainly a great milestone.
Thanks for all the views and the likes and keep spreading the love for photography.
I've created my own tool to monitor all the likes and views of my account. The tool is still under construction but you can follow progress here:
You can find my solution on Github.
If you want to raise any issue on the app, you can do it here:
github.com/JordiCorbilla/FlickrPhotoStats/issues
Description of the application here
Thank you all for your appreciation.
Follow me on:
© 2015 Jordi Corbilla - All Rights Reserved.
Do not use any of my images
without permission.
Look at this, a second post on here within two weeks of my last! That hasn't happened in a while, but I'm hoping to change that and be a little more active on here as I still love LEGO. I just haven't had much time for it recently, but I'll be trying to do my best to build more. Anyway, this is an older build, which was actually built for and displayed at Bricks Cascade 2018. I'm not happy with the picture, but they all turned out fairly meh and this has long since been scrapped. Hope you guys enjoy it despite that!
Reddish Egret - Biolab Road, Canaveral National Seashore, Wilson, Florida
Dah Wife says this has good "negative space".
I wasn't thinkin' that when I cropped and composed it,
but then I don't get all that analytical about compositions,
and most of what happens happens subconsciously,
but now that I look at it with that in mind,
it does look pretty negative spacey.
Note: This is the first image in a series of images,
unfortunately, in order to see the other pics on the "new" improved Flickr, you'll have to scroll up the comment section to the top of the comment list, or click on the following link to
view the other images in this series
The Jack Welch College of Business and the Office of Alumni Engagement presented “Careers in Analytics” on April 10, 2019, at the Martire Forum. The alumni panel featured Justin Baigert ’05, vice president, Data & Analytics at GE, Joseph Lucibello ’11, senior manager, data scientist at WWE and Suzanne May ’13, research manager at Purchased. The moderator was Khawaja Mamun, associate professor of economics. Photo by Mark F. Conrad
Different forms of fluctuations of the terrestrial gravity field are observed by gravity experiments. For example, atmospheric pressure fluctuations generate a gravity-noise foreground in measurements with super-conducting gravimeters. Gravity changes caused by high-magnitude earthquakes have been detected with the satellite gravity experiment GRACE, and we expect high-frequency terrestrial gravity fluctuations produced by ambient seismic fields to limit the sensitivity of ground-based gravitational-wave (GW) detectors. Accordingly, terrestrial gravity fluctuations are considered noise and signal depending on the experiment. Here, we will focus on ground-based gravimetry. This field is rapidly progressing through the development of GW detectors. The technology is pushed to its current limits in the advanced generation of the LIGO and Virgo detectors, targeting gravity strain sensitivities better than 10−23 Hz−1/2 above a few tens of a Hz. Alternative designs for GW detectors evolving from traditional gravity gradiometers such as torsion bars, atom interferometers, and superconducting gradiometers are currently being developed to extend the detection band to frequencies below 1 Hz. The goal of this article is to provide the analytical framework to describe terrestrial gravity perturbations in these experiments. Models of terrestrial gravity perturbations related to seismic fields, atmospheric disturbances, and vibrating, rotating or moving objects, are derived and analyzed. The models are then used to evaluate passive and active gravity noise mitigation strategies in GW detectors, or alternatively, to describe their potential use in geophysics. The article reviews the current state of the field, and also presents new analyses especially with respect to the impact of seismic scattering on gravity perturbations, active gravity noise cancellation, and time-domain models of gravity perturbations from atmospheric and seismic point sources. Our understanding of terrestrial gravity fluctuations will have great impact on the future development of GW detectors and high-precision gravimetry in general, and many open questions need to be answered still as emphasized in this article.
Keywords: Terrestrial gravity, Newtonian noise, Wiener filter, Mitigation
Go to:
Introduction
In the coming years, we will see a transition in the field of high-precision gravimetry from observations of slow lasting changes of the gravity field to the experimental study of fast gravity fluctuations. The latter will be realized by the advanced generation of the US-based LIGO [1] and Europe-based Virgo [7] gravitational-wave (GW) detectors. Their goal is to directly observe for the first time GWs that are produced by astrophysical sources such as inspiraling and merging neutron-star or black-hole binaries. Feasibility of the laser-interferometric detector concept has been demonstrated successfully with the first generation of detectors, which, in addition to the initial LIGO and Virgo detectors, also includes the GEO600 [119] and TAMA300 [161] detectors, and several prototypes around the world. The impact of these projects onto the field is two-fold. First of all, the direct detection of GWs will be a milestone in science opening a new window to our universe, and marking the beginning of a new era in observational astronomy. Second, several groups around the world have already started to adapt the technology to novel interferometer concepts [60, 155], with potential applications not only in GW science, but also geophysics. The basic measurement scheme is always the same: the relative displacement of test masses is monitored by using ultra-stable lasers. Progress in this field is strongly dependent on how well the motion of the test masses can be shielded from the environment. Test masses are placed in vacuum and are either freely falling (e.g., atom clouds [137]), or suspended and seismically isolated (e.g., high-quality glass or crystal mirrors as used in all of the detectors listed above). The best seismic isolations realized so far are effective above a few Hz, which limits the frequency range of detectable gravity fluctuations. Nonetheless, low-frequency concepts are continuously improving, and it is conceivable that future detectors will be sufficiently sensitive to detect GWs well below a Hz [88].
Terrestrial gravity perturbations were identified as a potential noise source already in the first concept laid out for a laser-interferometric GW detector [171]. Today, this form of noise is known as “terrestrial gravitational noise”, “Newtonian noise”, or “gravity-gradient noise”. It has never been observed in GW detectors, but it is predicted to limit the sensitivity of the advanced GW detectors at low frequencies. The most important source of gravity noise comes from fluctuating seismic fields [151]. Gravity perturbations from atmospheric disturbances such as pressure and temperature fluctuations can become significant at lower frequencies [51]. Anthropogenic sources of gravity perturbations are easier to avoid, but could also be relevant at lower frequencies [163]. Today, we only have one example of a direct observation of gravity fluctuations, i.e., from pressure fluctuations of the atmosphere in high-precision gravimeters [128]. Therefore, almost our entire understanding of gravity fluctuations is based on models. Nonetheless, potential sensitivity limits of future large-scale GW detectors need to be identified and characterized well in advance, and so there is a need to continuously improve our understanding of terrestrial gravity noise. Based on our current understanding, the preferred option is to construct future GW detectors underground to avoid the most dominant Newtonian-noise contributions. This choice was made for the next-generation Japanese GW detector KAGRA, which is currently being constructed underground at the Kamioka site [17], and also as part of a design study for the Einstein Telescope in Europe [140, 139]. While the benefit from underground construction with respect to gravity noise is expected to be substantial in GW detectors sensitive above a few Hz [27], it can be argued that it is less effective at lower frequencies [88].
Alternative mitigation strategies includes coherent noise cancellation [42]. The idea is to monitor the sources of gravity perturbations using auxiliary sensors such as microphones and seismometers, and to use their data to generate a coherent prediction of gravity noise. This technique is successfully applied in gravimeters to reduce the foreground of atmospheric gravity noise using collocated pressure sensors [128]. It is also noteworthy that the models of the atmospheric gravity noise are consistent with observations. This should give us some confidence at least that coherent Newtonian-noise cancellation can also be achieved in GW detectors. It is evident though that a model-based prediction of the performance of coherent noise cancellation schemes is prone to systematic errors as long as the properties of the sources are not fully understood. Ongoing experiments at the Sanford Underground Research Facility with the goal to characterize seismic fields in three dimensions are expected to deliver first data from an underground seismometer array in 2015 (see [89] for results from an initial stage of the experiment). While most people would argue that constructing GW detectors underground is always advantageous, it is still necessary to estimate how much is gained and whether the science case strongly profits from it. This is a complicated problem that needs to be answered as part of a site selection process.
More recently, high-precision gravity strainmeters have been considered as monitors of geophysical signals [83]. Analytical models have been calculated, which allow us to predict gravity transients from seismic sources such as earthquakes. It was suggested to implement gravity strainmeters in existing earthquake-early warning systems to increase warning times. It is also conceivable that an alternative method to estimate source parameters using gravity signals will improve our understanding of seismic sources. Potential applications must still be investigated in greater detail, but the study already demonstrates that the idea to use GW technology to realize new geophysical sensors seems feasible. As explained in [49], gravitational forces start to dominate the dynamics of seismic phenomena below about 1 mHz (which coincides approximately with a similar transition in atmospheric dynamics where gravity waves start to dominate over other forms of oscillations [164]). Seismic isolation would be ineffective below 1 mHz since the gravitational acceleration of a test mass produced by seismic displacement becomes comparable to the seismic acceleration itself. Therefore, we claim that 10 mHz is about the lowest frequency at which ground-based gravity strainmeters will ever be able to detect GWs, and consequently, modelling terrestrial gravity perturbations in these detectors can focus on frequencies above 10 mHz.
This article is divided into six main sections. Section 2 serves as an introduction to gravity measurements focussing on the response mechanisms and basic properties of gravity sensors. Section 3 describes models of gravity perturbations from ambient seismic fields. The results can be used to estimate noise spectra at the surface and underground. A subsection is devoted to the problem of noise estimation in low-frequency GW detectors, which differs from high-frequency estimates mostly in that gravity perturbations are strongly correlated between different test masses. In the low-frequency regime, the gravity noise is best described as gravity-gradient noise. Section 4 is devoted to time domain models of transient gravity perturbations from seismic point sources. The formalism is applied to point forces and shear dislocations. The latter allows us to estimate gravity perturbations from earthquakes. Atmospheric models of gravity perturbations are presented in Section 5. This includes gravity perturbations from atmospheric temperature fields, infrasound fields, shock waves, and acoustic noise from turbulence. The solution for shock waves is calculated in time domain using the methods of Section 4. A theoretical framework to calculate gravity perturbations from objects is given in Section 6. Since many different types of objects can be potential sources of gravity perturbations, the discussion focusses on the development of a general method instead of summarizing all of the calculations that have been done in the past. Finally, Section 7 discusses possible passive and active noise mitigation strategies. Due to the complexity of the problem, most of the section is devoted to active noise cancellation providing the required analysis tools and showing limitations of this technique. Site selection is the main topic under passive mitigation, and is discussed in the context of reducing environmental noise and criteria relevant to active noise cancellation. Each of these sections ends with a summary and a discussion of open problems. While this article is meant to be a review of the current state of the field, it also presents new analyses especially with respect to the impact of seismic scattering on gravity perturbations (Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3), active gravity noise cancellation (Section 7.1.3), and timedomain models of gravity perturbations from atmospheric and seismic point sources (Sections 4.1, 4.5, and 5.3).
Even though evident to experts, it is worth emphasizing that all calculations carried out in this article have a common starting point, namely Newton’s universal law of gravitation. It states that the attractive gravitational force equation M1 between two point masses m1, m2 is given by
equation M21
where G = 6.672 × 10−11 N m2/kg2 is the gravitational constant. Eq. (1) gives rise to many complex phenomena on Earth such as inner-core oscillations [156], atmospheric gravity waves [157], ocean waves [94, 177], and co-seismic gravity changes [122]. Due to its importance, we will honor the eponym by referring to gravity noise as Newtonian noise in the following. It is thereby clarified that the gravity noise models considered in this article are non-relativistic, and propagation effects of gravity changes are neglected. While there could be interesting scenarios where this approximation is not fully justified (e.g., whenever a gravity perturbation can be sensed by several sensors and differences in arrival times can be resolved), it certainly holds in any of the problems discussed in this article. We now invite the reader to enjoy the rest of the article, and hope that it proves to be useful.
Go to:
Gravity Measurements
In this section, we describe the relevant mechanisms by which a gravity sensor can couple to gravity perturbations, and give an overview of the most widely used measurement schemes: the (relative) gravimeter [53, 181], the gravity gradiometer [125], and the gravity strainmeter. The last category includes the large-scale GW detectors Virgo [6], LIGO [91], GEO600 [119], KAGRA [17], and a new generation of torsion-bar antennas currently under development [13]. Also atom interferometers can potentially be used as gravity strainmeters in the future [62]. Strictly speaking, none of the sensors only responds to a single field quantity (such as changes in gravity acceleration or gravity strain), but there is always a dominant response mechanism in each case, which justifies to give the sensor a specific name. A clear distinction between gravity gradiometers and gravity strainmeters has never been made to our knowledge. Therefore the sections on these two measurement principles will introduce a definition, and it is by no means the only possible one. Later on in this article, we almost exclusively discuss gravity models relevant to gravity strainmeters since the focus lies on gravity fluctuations above 10 mHz. Today, the sensitivity near 10 mHz of gravimeters towards gravity fluctuations is still competitive to or exceeds the sensitivity of gravity strainmeters, but this is likely going to change in the future so that we can expect strainmeters to become the technology of choice for gravity observations above 10 mHz [88]. The following sections provide further details on this statement. Space-borne gravity experiments such as GRACE [167] will not be included in this overview. The measurement principle of GRACE is similar to that of gravity strainmeters, but only very slow changes of Earth gravity field can be observed, and for this reason it is beyond the scope of this article.
The different response mechanisms to terrestrial gravity perturbations are summarized in Section 2.1. While we will identify the tidal forces acting on the test masses as dominant coupling mechanism, other couplings may well be relevant depending on the experiment. The Shapiro time delay will be discussed as the only relativistic effect. Higher-order relativistic effects are neglected. All other coupling mechanisms can be calculated using Newtonian theory including tidal forces, coupling in static non-uniform gravity fields, and coupling through ground displacement induced by gravity fluctuations. In Sections 2.2 to 2.4, the different measurement schemes are explained including a brief summary of the sensitivity limitations (choosing one of a few possible experimental realizations in each case). As mentioned before, we will mostly develop gravity models relevant to gravity strainmeters in the remainder of the article. Therefore, the detailed discussion of alternative gravimetry concepts mostly serves to highlight important differences between these concepts, and to develop a deeper understanding of the instruments and their role in gravity measurements.
Gravity response mechanisms
Gravity acceleration and tidal forces We will start with the simplest mechanism of all, the acceleration of a test mass in the gravity field. Instruments that measure the acceleration are called gravimeters. A test mass inside a gravimeter can be freely falling such as atom clouds [181] or, as suggested as possible future development, even macroscopic objects [72]. Typically though, test masses are supported mechanically or magnetically constraining motion in some of its degrees of freedom. A test mass suspended from strings responds to changes in the horizontal gravity acceleration. A test mass attached at the end of a cantilever with horizontal equilibrium position responds to changes in vertical gravity acceleration. The support fulfills two purposes. First, it counteracts the static gravitational force in a way that the test mass can respond to changes in the gravity field along a chosen degree of freedom. Second, it isolates the test mass from vibrations. Response to signals and isolation performance depend on frequency. If the support is modelled as a linear, harmonic oscillator, then the test mass response to gravity changes extends over all frequencies, but the response is strongly suppressed below the oscillators resonance frequency. The response function between the gravity perturbation δg(ω) and induced test mass acceleration δa(ω) assumes the form
equation M32
where we have introduced a viscous damping parameter γ, and ω0 is the resonance frequency. Well below resonance, the response is proportional to ω2, while it is constant well above resonance. Above resonance, the supported test mass responds like a freely falling mass, at least with respect to “soft” directions of the support. The test-mass response to vibrations δα(ω) of the support is given by
equation M43
This applies for example to horizontal vibrations of the suspension points of strings that hold a test mass, or to vertical vibrations of the clamps of a horizontal cantilever with attached test mass. Well above resonance, vibrations are suppressed by ω−2, while no vibration isolation is provided below resonance. The situation is somewhat more complicated in realistic models of the support especially due to internal modes of the mechanical system (see for example [76]), or due to coupling of degrees of freedom [121]. Large mechanical support structures can feature internal resonances at relatively low frequencies, which can interfere to some extent with the desired performance of the mechanical support [173]. While Eqs. (2) and (3) summarize the properties of isolation and response relevant for this paper, details of the readout method can fundamentally impact an instrument’s response to gravity fluctuations and its susceptibility to seismic noise, as explained in Sections 2.2 to 2.4.
Next, we discuss the response to tidal forces. In Newtonian theory, tidal forces cause a relative acceleration δg12(ω) between two freely falling test masses according to
equation M54
where equation M6 is the Fourier amplitude of the gravity potential. The last equation holds if the distance r12 between the test masses is sufficiently small, which also depends on the frequency. The term equation M7 is called gravity-gradient tensor. In Newtonian approximation, the second time integral of this tensor corresponds to gravity strain equation M8, which is discussed in more detail in Section 2.4. Its trace needs to vanish in empty space since the gravity potential fulfills the Poisson equation. Tidal forces produce the dominant signals in gravity gradiometers and gravity strainmeters, which measure the differential acceleration or associated relative displacement between two test masses (see Sections 2.3 and 2.4). If the test masses used for a tidal measurement are supported, then typically the supports are designed to be as similar as possible, so that the response in Eq. (2) holds for both test masses approximately with the same parameter values for the resonance frequencies (and to a lesser extent also for the damping). For the purpose of response calibration, it is less important to know the parameter values exactly if the signal is meant to be observed well above the resonance frequency where the response is approximately equal to 1 independent of the resonance frequency and damping (here, “well above” resonance also depends on the damping parameter, and in realistic models, the signal frequency also needs to be “well below” internal resonances of the mechanical support).
Shapiro time delay Another possible gravity response is through the Shapiro time delay [19]. This effect is not universally present in all gravity sensors, and depends on the readout mechanism. Today, the best sensitivities are achieved by reflecting laser beams from test masses in interferometric configurations. If the test mass is displaced by gravity fluctuations, then it imprints a phase shift onto the reflected laser, which can be observed in laser interferometers, or using phasemeters. We will give further details on this in Section 2.4. In Newtonian gravity, the acceleration of test masses is the only predicted response to gravity fluctuations. However, from general relativity we know that gravity also affects the propagation of light. The leading-order term is the Shapiro time delay, which produces a phase shift of the laser beam with respect to a laser propagating in flat space. It can be calculated from the weak-field spacetime metric (see chapter 18 in [124]):
equation M95
Here, c is the speed of light, ds is the so-called line element of a path in spacetime, and equation M10. Additionally, for this metric to hold, motion of particles in the source of the gravity potential responsible for changes of the gravity potential need to be much slower than the speed of light, and also stresses inside the source must be much smaller than its mass energy density. All conditions are fulfilled in the case of Earth gravity field. Light follows null geodesics with ds2 = 0. For the spacetime metric in Eq. (5), we can immediately write
equation M116
As we will find out, this equation can directly be used to calculate the time delay as an integral along a straight line in terms of the coordinates equation M12, but this is not immediately clear since light bends in a gravity field. So one may wonder if integration along the proper light path instead of a straight line yields additional significant corrections. The so-called geodesic equation must be used to calculate the path. It is a set of four differential equations, one for each coordinate t, equation M13 in terms of a parameter λ. The weak-field geodesic equation is obtained from the metric in Eq. (5):
equation M147
where we have made use of Eq. (6) and the slow-motion condition equation M15. The coordinates equation M16 are to be understood as functions of λ. Since the deviation of a straight path is due to a weak gravity potential, we can solve these equations by perturbation theory introducing expansions equation M17 and t = t(0) +t(1) + …. The superscript indicates the order in ψ/c2. The unperturbed path has the simple parametrization
equation M188
We have chosen integration constants such that unperturbed time t(0) and parameter λ can be used interchangeably (apart from a shift by t0). Inserting these expressions into the right-hand side of Eq. (7), we obtain
equation M199
As we can see, up to linear order in equation M20, the deviation equation M21 is in orthogonal direction to the unperturbed path equation M22, which means that the deviation can be neglected in the calculation of the time delay. After some transformations, it is possible to derive Eq. (6) from Eq. (9), and this time we find explicitly that the right-hand-side of the equation only depends on the unperturbed coordinates1. In other words, we can integrate the time delay along a straight line as defined in Eq. (8), and so the total phase integrated over a travel distance L is given by
equation M2310
In static gravity fields, the phase shift doubles if the light is sent back since not only the direction of integration changes, but also the sign of the expression substituted for dt/dλ.
Gravity induced ground motion As we will learn in Section 3, seismic fields produce gravity perturbations either through density fluctuations of the ground, or by displacing interfaces between two materials of different density. It is also well-known in seismology that seismic fields can be affected significantly by self-gravity. Self-gravity means that the gravity perturbation produced by a seismic field acts back on the seismic field. The effect is most significant at low frequency where gravity induced acceleration competes against acceleration from elastic forces. In seismology, low-frequency seismic fields are best described in terms of Earth’s normal modes [55]. Normal modes exist as toroidal modes and spheroidal modes. Spheroidal modes are influenced by self-gravity, toroidal modes are not. For example, predictions of frequencies and shapes of spheroidal modes based on Earth models such as PREM (Preliminary Reference Earth Model) [68] are inaccurate if self-gravity effects are excluded. What this practically means is that in addition to displacement amplitudes, gravity becomes a dynamical variable in the elastodynamic equations that determine the normal-mode properties. Therefore, seismic displacement and gravity perturbation cannot be separated in normal-mode formalism (although self-gravity can be neglected in calculations of spheroidal modes at sufficiently high frequency).
In certain situations, it is necessary or at least more intuitive to separate gravity from seismic fields. An exotic example is Earth’s response to GWs [67, 49, 47, 30, 48]. Another example is the seismic response to gravity perturbations produced by strong seismic events at large distance to the source as described in Section 4. It is more challenging to analyze this scenario using normal-mode formalism. The sum over all normal modes excited by the seismic event (each of which describing a global displacement field) must lead to destructive interference of seismic displacement at large distances (where seismic waves have not yet arrived), but not of the gravity amplitudes since gravity is immediately perturbed everywhere. It can be easier to first calculate the gravity perturbation from the seismic perturbation, and then to calculate the response of the seismic field to the gravity perturbation at larger distance. This method will be adopted in this section. Gravity fields will be represented as arbitrary force or tidal fields (detailed models are presented in later sections), and we simply calculate the response of the seismic field. Normal-mode formalism can be avoided only at sufficiently high frequencies where the curvature of Earth does not significantly influence the response (i.e., well above 10 mHz). In this section, we will model the ground as homogeneous half space, but also more complex geologies can in principle be assumed.
Gravity can be introduced in two ways into the elastodynamic equations, as a conservative force −∇ψ [146, 169], or as tidal strain The latter method was described first by Dyson to calculate Earth’s response to GWs [67]. The approach also works for Newtonian gravity, with the difference that the tidal field produced by a GW is necessarily a quadrupole field with only two degrees of freedom (polarizations), while tidal fields produced by terrestrial sources are less constrained. Certainly, GWs can only be fully described in the framework of general relativity, which means that their representation as a Newtonian tidal field cannot be used to explain all possible observations [124]. Nonetheless, important here is that Dyson’s method can be extended to Newtonian tidal fields. Without gravity, the elastodynamic equations for small seismic displacement can be written as
equation M2411
where equation M25 is the seismic displacement field, and equation M26 is the stress tensor [9]. In the absence of other forces, the stress is determined by the seismic field. In the case of a homogeneous and isotropic medium, the stress tensor for small seismic displacement can be written as
equation M2712
The quantity equation M28 is known as seismic strain tensor, and λ, μ are the Lamé constants (see Section 3.1). Its trace is equal to the divergence of the displacement field. Dyson introduced the tidal field from first principles using Lagrangian mechanics, but we can follow a simpler approach. Eq. (12) means that a stress field builds up in response to a seismic strain field, and the divergence of the stress field acts as a force producing seismic displacement. The same happens in response to a tidal field, which we represent as gravity strain equation M29. A strain field changes the distance between two freely falling test masses separated by equation M30 by equation M312. For sufficiently small distances L, the strain field can be substituted by the second time integral of the gravity-gradient tensor equation M32. If the masses are not freely falling, then the strain field acts as an additional force. The corresponding contribution to the material’s stress tensor can be written
equation M3313
Since we assume that the gravity field is produced by a distant source, the local contribution to gravity perturbations is neglected, which means that the gravity potential obeys the Laplace equation, equation M34. Calculating the divergence of the stress tensor according to Eq. (11), we find that the gravity term vanishes! This means that a homogeneous and isotropic medium does not respond to gravity strain fields. However, we have to be more careful here. Our goal is to calculate the response of a half-space to gravity strain. Even if the half-space is homogeneous, the Lamé constants change discontinuously across the surface. Hence, at the surface, the divergence of the stress tensor reads
equation M3514
In other words, tidal fields produce a force onto an elastic medium via gradients in the shear modulus (second Lamé constant). The gradient of the shear modulus can be written in terms of a Dirac delta function, equation M36, for a flat surface at z = 0 with unit normal vector equation M37. The response to gravity strain fields is obtained applying the boundary condition of vanishing surface traction, equation M38:
equation M3915
Once the seismic strain field is calculated, it can be used to obtain the seismic stress, which determines the displacement field equation M40 according to Eq. (11). In this way, one can for example calculate that a seismometer or gravimeter can observe GWs by monitoring surface displacement as was first calculated by Dyson [67].
Coupling in non-uniform, static gravity fields If the gravity field is static, but non-uniform, then displacement equation M41 of the test mass in this field due to a non-gravitational fluctuating force is associated with a changing gravity acceleration according to
equation M4216
We introduce a characteristic length λ, over which gravity acceleration varies significantly. Hence, we can rewrite the last equation in terms of the associated test-mass displacement ζ
equation M4317
where we have neglected directional dependence and numerical factors. The acceleration change from motion in static, inhomogeneous fields is generally more significant at low frequencies. Let us consider the specific case of a suspended test mass. It responds to fluctuations in horizontal gravity acceleration. The test mass follows the motion of the suspension point in vertical direction (i.e., no seismic isolation), while seismic noise in horizontal direction is suppressed according to Eq. (3). Accordingly, it is possible that the unsuppressed vertical (z-axis) seismic noise ξz(t) coupling into the horizontal (x-axis) motion of the test mass through the term ∂xgz = ∂zgx dominates over the gravity response term in Eq. (2). Due to additional coupling mechanisms between vertical and horizontal motion in real seismic-isolation systems, test masses especially in GW detectors are also isolated in vertical direction, but without achieving the same noise suppression as in horizontal direction. For example, the requirements on vertical test-mass displacement for Advanced LIGO are a factor 1000 less stringent than on the horizontal displacement [22]. Requirements can be set on the vertical isolation by estimating the coupling of vertical motion into horizontal motion, which needs to take the gravity-gradient coupling of Eq. (16) into account. Although, because of the frequency dependence, gravity-gradient effects are more significant in low-frequency detectors, such as the space-borne GW detector LISA [154].
Next, we calculate an estimate of gravity gradients in the vicinity of test masses in large-scale GW detectors, and see if the gravity-gradient coupling matters compared to mechanical vertical-to-horizontal coupling.
One contribution to gravity gradients will come from the vacuum chamber surrounding the test mass. We approximate the shape of the chamber as a hollow cylinder with open ends (open ends just to simplify the calculation). In our calculation, the test mass can be offset from the cylinder axis and be located at any distance to the cylinder ends (we refer to this coordinate as height). The gravity field can be expressed in terms of elliptic integrals, but the explicit solution is not of concern here. Instead, let us take a look at the results in Figure Figure1.1. Gravity gradients ∂zgx vanish if the test mass is located on the symmetry axis or at height L/2. There are also two additional ∂zgx = 0 contour lines starting at the symmetry axis at heights ∼ 0.24 and ∼0.76. Let us assume that the test mass is at height 0.3L, a distance 0.05L from the cylinder axis, the total mass of the cylinder is M = 5000 kg, and the cylinder height is L = 4 m. In this case, the gravity-gradient induced vertical-to-horizontal coupling factor at 20 Hz is
equation M4418
This means that gravity-gradient induced coupling is extremely weak, and lies well below estimates of mechanical coupling (of order 0.001 in Advanced LIGO3). Even though the vacuum chamber was modelled with a very simple shape, and additional asymmetries in the mass distribution around the test mass may increase gravity gradients, it still seems very unlikely that the coupling would be significant. As mentioned before, one certainly needs to pay more attention when calculating the coupling at lower frequencies. The best procedure is of course to have a 3D model of the near test-mass infrastructure available and to use it for a precise calculation of the gravity-gradient field.
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 41114_2016_3_Fig1.jpg
Figure 1
Gravity gradients inside hollow cylinder. The total height of the cylinder is L, and M is its total mass. The radius of the cylinder is 0.3L. The axes correspond to the distance of the test mass from the symmetry axis of the cylinder, and its height above one of the cylinders ends. The plot on the right is simply a zoom of the left plot into the intermediate heights.
Gravimeters
Gravimeters are instruments that measure the displacement of a test mass with respect to a non-inertial reference rigidly connected to the ground. The test mass is typically supported mechanically or magnetically (atom-interferometric gravimeters are an exception), which means that the test-mass response to gravity is altered with respect to a freely falling test mass. We will use Eq. (2) as a simplified response model. There are various possibilities to measure the displacement of a test mass. The most widespread displacement sensors are based on capacitive readout, as for example used in superconducting gravimeters (see Figure Figure22 and [96]). Sensitive displacement measurements are in principle also possible with optical readout systems; a method that is (necessarily) implemented in atom-interferometric gravimeters [137], and prototype seismometers [34] (we will explain the distinction between seismometers and gravimeters below). As will become clear in Section 2.4, optical readout is better suited for displacement measurements over long baselines, as required for the most sensitive gravity strain measurements, while the capacitive readout should be designed with the smallest possible distance between the test mass and the non-inertial reference [104].
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 41114_2016_3_Fig2.jpg
Figure 2
Sketch of a levitated sphere serving as test mass in a superconducting gravimeter. Dashed lines indicate magnetic field lines. Coils are used for levitation and precise positioning of the sphere. Image reproduced with permission from [96]; copyright by Elsevier.
Let us take a closer look at the basic measurement scheme of a superconducting gravimeter shown in Figure Figure2.2. The central part is formed by a spherical superconducting shell that is levitated by superconducting coils. Superconductivity provides stability of the measurement, and also avoids some forms of noise (see [96] for details). In this gravimeter design, the lower coil is responsible mostly to balance the mean gravitational force acting on the sphere, while the upper coil modifies the magnetic gradient such that a certain “spring constant” of the magnetic levitation is realized. In other words, the current in the upper coil determines the resonance frequency in Eq. (2).
Capacitor plates are distributed around the sphere. Whenever a force acts on the sphere, the small signal produced in the capacitive readout is used to immediately cancel this force by a feedback coil. In this way, the sphere is kept at a constant location with respect to the external frame. This illustrates a common concept in all gravimeters. The displacement sensors can only respond to relative displacement between a test mass and a surrounding structure. If small gravity fluctuations are to be measured, then it is not sufficient to realize low-noise readout systems, but also vibrations of the surrounding structure forming the reference frame must be as small as possible. In general, as we will further explore in the coming sections, gravity fluctuations are increasingly dominant with decreasing frequency. At about 1 mHz, gravity acceleration associated with fluctuating seismic fields become comparable to seismic acceleration, and also atmospheric gravity noise starts to be significant [53]. At higher frequencies, seismic acceleration is much stronger than typical gravity fluctuations, which means that the gravimeter effectively operates as a seismometer. In summary, at sufficiently low frequencies, the gravimeter senses gravity accelerations of the test mass with respect to a relatively quiet reference, while at higher frequencies, the gravimeter senses seismic accelerations of the reference with respect to a test mass subject to relatively small gravity fluctuations. In superconducting gravimeters, the third important contribution to the response is caused by vertical motion ξ(t) of a levitated sphere against a static gravity gradient (see Section 2.1.4). As explained above, feedback control suppresses relative motion between sphere and gravimeter frame, which causes the sphere to move as if attached to the frame or ground. In the presence of a static gravity gradient ∂zgz, the motion of the sphere against this gradient leads to a change in gravity, which alters the feedback force (and therefore the recorded signal). The full contribution from gravitational, δa(t), and seismic, equation M45, accelerations can therefore be written
equation M4619
It is easy to verify, using Eqs. (2) and (3), that the relative amplitude of gravity and seismic fluctuations from the first two terms is independent of the test-mass support. Therefore, vertical seismic displacement of the reference frame must be considered fundamental noise of gravimeters and can only be avoided by choosing a quiet measurement site. Obviously, Eq. (19) is based on a simplified support model. One of the important design goals of the mechanical support is to minimize additional noise due to non-linearities and cross-coupling. As is explained further in Section 2.3, it is also not possible to suppress seismic noise in gravimeters by subtracting the disturbance using data from a collocated seismometer. Doing so inevitably turns the gravimeter into a gravity gradiometer.
Gravimeters target signals that typically lie well below 1 mHz. Mechanical or magnetic supports of test masses have resonance frequencies at best slightly below 10 mHz along horizontal directions, and typically above 0.1 Hz in the vertical direction [23, 174]4. Well below resonance frequency, the response function can be approximated as equation M47. At first, it may look as if the gravimeter should not be sensitive to very low-frequency fluctuations since the response becomes very weak. However, the strength of gravity fluctuations also strongly increases with decreasing frequency, which compensates the small response. It is clear though that if the resonance frequency was sufficiently high, then the response would become so weak that the gravity signal would not stand out above other instrumental noise anymore. The test-mass support would be too stiff. The sensitivity of the gravimeter depends on the resonance frequency of the support and the intrinsic instrumental noise. With respect to seismic noise, the stiffness of the support has no influence as explained before (the test mass can also fall freely as in atom interferometers).
For superconducting gravimeters of the Global Geodynamics Project (GGP) [52], the median spectra are shown in Figure Figure3.3. Between 0.1 mHz and 1 mHz, atmospheric gravity perturbations typically dominate, while instrumental noise is the largest contribution between 1 mHz and 5 mHz [96]. The smallest signal amplitudes that have been measured by integrating long-duration signals is about 10−12 m/s2. A detailed study of noise in superconducting gravimeters over a larger frequency range can be found in [145]. Note that in some cases, it is not fit to categorize seismic and gravity fluctuations as noise and signal. For example, Earth’s spherical normal modes coherently excite seismic and gravity fluctuations, and the individual contributions in Eq. (19) have to be understood only to accurately translate data into normal-mode amplitudes [55].
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 41114_2016_3_Fig3.jpg
Figure 3
Median spectra of superconducting gravimeters of the GGP. Image reproduced with permission from [48]; copyright by APS.
Gravity gradiometers
It is not the purpose of this section to give a complete overview of the different gradiometer designs. Gradiometers find many practical applications, for example in navigation and resource exploration, often with the goal to measure static or slowly changing gravity gradients, which do not concern us here. For example, we will not discuss rotating gradiometers, and instead focus on gradiometers consisting of stationary test masses. While the former are ideally suited to measure static or slowly changing gravity gradients with high precision especially under noisy conditions, the latter design has advantages when measuring weak tidal fluctuations. In the following, we only refer to the stationary design. A gravity gradiometer measures the relative acceleration between two test masses each responding to fluctuations of the gravity field [102, 125]. The test masses have to be located close to each other so that the approximation in Eq. (4) holds. The proximity of the test masses is used here as the defining property of gradiometers. They are therefore a special type of gravity strainmeter (see Section 2.4), which denotes any type of instrument that measures relative gravitational acceleration (including the even more general concept of measuring space-time strain).
Gravity gradiometers can be realized in two versions. First, one can read out the position of two test masses with respect to the same rigid, non-inertial reference. The two channels, each of which can be considered a gravimeter, are subsequently subtracted. This scheme is for example realized in dual-sphere designs of superconducting gravity gradiometers [90] or in atom-interferometric gravity gradiometers [159].
It is schematically shown in Figure Figure4.4. Let us first consider the dual-sphere design of a superconducting gradiometer. If the reference is perfectly stiff, and if we assume as before that there are no cross-couplings between degrees of freedom and the response is linear, then the subtraction of the two gravity channels cancels all of the seismic noise, leaving only the instrumental noise and the differential gravity signal given by the second line of Eq. (4). Even in real setups, the reduction of seismic noise can be many orders of magnitude since the two spheres are close to each other, and the two readouts pick up (almost) the same seismic noise [125]. This does not mean though that gradiometers are necessarily more sensitive instruments to monitor gravity fields. A large part of the gravity signal (the common-mode part) is subtracted together with the seismic noise, and the challenge is now passed from finding a seismically quiet site to developing an instrument with lowest possible intrinsic noise.
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 41114_2016_3_Fig4.jpg
Figure 4
Basic scheme of a gravity gradiometer for measurements along the vertical direction. Two test masses are supported by horizontal cantilevers (superconducting magnets, …). Acceleration of both test masses is measured against the same non-inertial reference frame, which is connected to the ground. Each measurement constitutes one gravimeter. Subtraction of the two channels yields a gravity gradiometer.
The atom-interferometric gradiometer differs in some important details from the superconducting gradiometer. The test masses are realized by ultracold atom clouds, which are (nearly) freely falling provided that magnetic shielding of the atoms is sufficient, and interaction between atoms can be neglected. Interactions of a pair of atom clouds with a laser beam constitute the basic gravity gradiometer scheme. Even though the test masses are freely falling, the readout is not generally immune to seismic noise [80, 18]. The laser beam interacting with the atom clouds originates from a source subject to seismic disturbances, and interacts with optics that require seismic isolation. Schemes have been proposed that could lead to a large reduction of seismic noise [178, 77], but their effectiveness has not been tested in experiments yet. Since the differential position (or tidal) measurement is performed using a laser beam, the natural application of atom-interferometer technology is as gravity strainmeter (as explained before, laser beams are favorable for differential position measurements over long baselines). Nonetheless, the technology is currently insufficiently developed to realize large-baseline experiments, and we can therefore focus on its application in gradiometry. Let us take a closer look at the response of atom-interferometric gradiometers to seismic noise. In atom-interferometric detectors (excluding the new schemes proposed in [178, 77]), one can show that seismic acceleration δα(ω) of the optics or laser source limits the sensitivity of a tidal measurement according to
equation M4820
where L is the separation of the two atom clouds, and is the speed of light. It should be emphasized that the seismic noise remains, even if all optics and the laser source are all linked to the same infinitely stiff frame. In addition to this noise term, other coupling mechanisms may play a role, which can however be suppressed by engineering efforts. The noise-reduction factor ωL/c needs to be compared with the common-mode suppression of seismic noise in superconducting gravity gradiometers, which depends on the stiffness of the instrument frame, and on contamination from cross coupling of degrees-of-freedom. While the seismic noise in Eq. (20) is a fundamental noise contribution in (conventional) atom-interferometric gradiometers, the noise suppression in superconducting gradiometers depends more strongly on the engineering effort (at least, we venture to claim that common-mode suppression achieved in current instrument designs is well below what is fundamentally possible).
To conclude this section, we discuss in more detail the connection between gravity gradiometers and seismically (actively or passively) isolated gravimeters. As we have explained in Section 2.2, the sensitivity limitation of gravimeters by seismic noise is independent of the mechanical support of the test mass (assuming an ideal, linear support). The main purpose of the mechanical support is to maximize the response of the test mass to gravity fluctuations, and thereby increase the signal with respect to instrumental noise other than seismic noise. Here we will explain that even a seismic isolation of the gravimeter cannot overcome this noise limitation, at least not without fundamentally changing its response to gravity fluctuations. Let us first consider the case of a passively seismically isolated gravimeter. For example, we can imagine that the gravimeter is suspended from the tip of a strong horizontal cantilever. The system can be modelled as two oscillators in a chain, with a light test mass m supported by a heavy mass M representing the gravimeter (reference) frame, which is itself supported from a point rigidly connected to Earth. The two supports are modelled as harmonic oscillators. As before, we neglect cross coupling between degrees of freedom. Linearizing the response of the gravimeter frame and test mass for small accelerations, and further neglecting terms proportional to m/M, one finds the gravimeter response to gravity fluctuations:
equation M4921
Here, ω1, γ1 are the resonance frequency and damping of the gravimeter support, while ω2, γ2 are the resonance frequency and damping of the test-mass support. The response and isolation functions R(·), S(·) are defined in Eqs. (2) and (3). Remember that Eq. (21) is obtained as a differential measurement of test-mass acceleration versus acceleration of the reference frame. Therefore, δg1(ω) denotes the gravity fluctuation at the center-of-mass of the gravimeter frame, and δg2(ω) at the test mass. An infinitely stiff gravimeter suspension, ω1 → ∞, yields R(ω; ω1, γ1) = 0, and the response turns into the form of the non-isolated gravimeter. The seismic isolation is determined by
equation M5022
We can summarize the last two equations as follows. At frequencies well above ω1, the seismically isolated gravimeter responds like a gravity gradiometer, and seismic noise is strongly suppressed. The deviation from the pure gradiometer response ∼ δg2(ω) − δg1(ω) is determined by the same function S(ω; ω1, γ1) that describes the seismic isolation. In other words, if the gravity gradient was negligible, then we ended up with the conventional gravimeter response, with signals suppressed by the seismic isolation function. Well below ω1, the seismically isolated gravimeter responds like a conventional gravimeter without seismic-noise reduction. If the centers of the masses m (test mass) and M (reference frame) coincide, and therefore δg1(ω) = δg2(ω), then the response is again like a conventional gravimeter, but this time suppressed by the isolation function S(ω; ω1, γ1).
Let us compare the passively isolated gravimeter with an actively isolated gravimeter. In active isolation, the idea is to place the gravimeter on a stiff platform whose orientation can be controlled by actuators. Without actuation, the platform simply follows local surface motion. There are two ways to realize an active isolation. One way is to place a seismometer next to the platform onto the ground, and use its data to subtract ground motion from the platform. The actuators cancel the seismic forces. This scheme is called feed-forward noise cancellation. Feed-forward cancellation of gravity noise is discussed at length in Section 7.1, which provides details on its implementation and limitations. The second possibility is to place the seismometer together with the gravimeter onto the platform, and to suppress seismic noise in a feedback configuration [4, 2]. In the following, we discuss the feed-forward technique as an example since it is easier to analyze (for example, feedback control can be unstable [4]). As before, we focus on gravity and seismic fluctuations. The seismometer’s intrinsic noise plays an important role in active isolation limiting its performance, but we are only interested in the modification of the gravimeter’s response. Since there is no fundamental difference in how a seismometer and a gravimeter respond to seismic and gravity fluctuations, we know from Section 2.2 that the seismometer output is proportional to δg1(ω) − δα(ω), i.e., using a single test mass for acceleration measurements, seismic and gravity perturbations contribute in the same way. A transfer function needs to be multiplied to the acceleration signals, which accounts for the mechanical support and possibly also electronic circuits involved in the seismometer readout. To cancel the seismic noise of the platform that carries the gravimeter, the effect of all transfer functions needs to be reversed by a matched feed-forward filter. The output of the filter is then equal to δg1(ω) − δα(ω) and is added to the motion of the platform using actuators cancelling the seismic noise and adding the seismometer’s gravity signal. In this case, the seismometer’s gravity signal takes the place of the seismic noise in Eq. (3). The complete gravity response of the actively isolated gravimeter then reads
equation M5123
The response is identical to a gravity gradiometer, where ω2, γ2 are the resonance frequency and damping of the gravimeter’s test-mass support. In reality, instrumental noise of the seismometer will limit the isolation performance and introduce additional noise into Eq. (23). Nonetheless, Eqs. (21) and (23) show that any form of seismic isolation turns a gravimeter into a gravity gradiometer at frequencies where seismic isolation is effective. For the passive seismic isolation, this means that the gravimeter responds like a gradiometer at frequencies well above the resonance frequency ω1 of the gravimeter support, while it behaves like a conventional gravimeter below ω1. From these results it is clear that the design of seismic isolations and the gravity response can in general not be treated independently. As we will see in Section 2.4 though, tidal measurements can profit strongly from seismic isolation especially when common-mode suppression of seismic noise like in gradiometers is insufficient or completely absent.
Gravity strainmeters
Gravity strain is an unusual concept in gravimetry that stems from our modern understanding of gravity in the framework of general relativity. From an observational point of view, it is not much different from elastic strain. Fluctuating gravity strain causes a change in distance between two freely falling test masses, while seismic or elastic strain causes a change in distance between two test masses bolted to an elastic medium. It should be emphasized though that we cannot always use this analogy to understand observations of gravity strain [106]. Fundamentally, gravity strain corresponds to a perturbation of the metric that determines the geometrical properties of spacetime [124]. We will briefly discuss GWs, before returning to a Newtonian description of gravity strain.
Gravitational waves are weak perturbations of spacetime propagating at the speed of light. Freely falling test masses change their distance in the field of a GW. When the length of the GW is much larger than the separation between the test masses, it is possible to interpret this change as if caused by a Newtonian force. We call this the long-wavelength regime. Since we are interested in the low-frequency response of gravity strainmeters throughout this article (i.e., frequencies well below 100 Hz), this condition is always fulfilled for Earth-bound experiments. The effect of a gravity-strain field equation M52 on a pair of test masses can then be represented as an equivalent Newtonian tidal field
equation M5324
Here, equation M54 is the relative acceleration between two freely falling test masses, L is the distance between them, and equation M55 is the unit vector pointing from one to the other test mass, and equation M56 its transpose. As can be seen, the gravity-strain field is represented by a 3 × 3 tensor. It contains the space-components of a 4-dimensional metric perturbation of spacetime, and determines all properties of GWs5. Note that the strain amplitude h in Eq. (24) needs to be multiplied by 2 to obtain the corresponding amplitude of the metric perturbation (e.g., the GW amplitude). Throughout this article, we define gravity strain as h = ΔL/L, while the effect of a GW with amplitude aGW on the separation of two test mass is determined by aGW = 2ΔL/L.
The strain field of a GW takes the form of a quadrupole oscillation with two possible polarizations commonly denoted × (cross)-polarization and +(plus)-polarization. The arrows in Figure Figure55 indicate the lines of the equivalent tidal field of Eq. (24).
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 41114_2016_3_Fig5.jpg
Figure 5
Polarizations of a gravitational wave.
Consequently, to (directly) observe GWs, one can follow two possible schemes: (1) the conventional method, which is a measurement of the relative displacement of suspended test masses typically carried out along two perpendicular baselines (arms); and (2) measurement of the relative rotation between two suspended bars. Figure Figure66 illustrates the two cases. In either case, the response of a gravity strainmeter is obtained by projecting the gravity strain tensor onto a combination of two unit vectors, equation M57 and equation M58, that characterize the orientation of the detector, such as the directions of two bars in a rotational gravity strain meter, or of two arms of a conventional gravity strain meter. This requires us to define two different gravity strain projections. The projection for the rotational strain measurement is given by
equation M5925
where the subscript × indicates that the detector responds to the ×-polarization assuming that the x, y-axes (see Figure Figure5)5) are oriented along two perpendicular bars. The vectors equation M60 and equation M61 are rotated counter-clockwise by 90° with respect to equation M62 and equation M63. In the case of perpendicular bars equation M64 and equation M65. The corresponding projection for the conventional gravity strain meter reads
equation M6626
The subscript + indicates that the detector responds to the +-polarization provided that the x, y-axes are oriented along two perpendicular baselines (arms) of the detector. The two schemes are shown in Figure Figure6.6. The most sensitive GW detectors are based on the conventional method, and distance between test masses is measured by means of laser interferometry. The LIGO and Virgo detectors have achieved strain sensitivities of better than 10−22 Hz−1/2 between about 50 Hz and 1000 Hz in past science runs and are currently being commissioned in their advanced configurations [91, 7]. The rotational scheme is realized in torsion-bar antennas, which are considered as possible technology for sub-Hz GW detection [155, 69]. However, with achieved strain sensitivity of about 10−8 Hz−1/2 near 0.1 Hz, the torsion-bar detectors are far from the sensitivity we expect to be necessary for GW detection [88].
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 41114_2016_3_Fig6.jpg
Figure 6
Sketches of the relative rotational and displacement measurement schemes.
Let us now return to the discussion of the previous sections on the role of seismic isolation and its impact on gravity response. Gravity strainmeters profit from seismic isolation more than gravimeters or gravity gradiometers. We have shown in Section 2.2 that seismically isolated gravimeters are effectively gravity gradiometers. So in this case, seismic isolation changes the response of the instrument in a fundamental way, and it does not make sense to talk of seismically isolated gravimeters. Seismic isolation could in principle be beneficial for gravity gradiometers (i.e., the acceleration of two test masses is measured with respect to a common rigid, seismically isolated reference frame), but the common-mode rejection of seismic noise (and gravity signals) due to the differential readout is typically so high that other instrumental noise becomes dominant. So it is possible that some gradiometers would profit from seismic isolation, but it is not generally true. Let us now consider the case of a gravity strainmeter. As explained in Section 2.3, we distinguish gradiometers and strainmeters by the distance of their test masses. For example, the distance of the LIGO or Virgo test masses is 4 km and 3 km respectively. Seismic noise and terrestrial gravity fluctuations are insignificantly correlated between the two test masses within the detectors’ most sensitive frequency band (above 10 Hz). Therefore, the approximation in Eq. (4) does not apply. Certainly, the distinction between gravity gradiometers and strainmeters remains somewhat arbitrary since at any frequency the approximation in Eq. (4) can hold for one type of gravity fluctuation, while it does not hold for another. Let us adopt a more practical definition at this point. Whenever the design of the instrument places the test masses as distant as possible from each other given current technology, then we call such an instrument strainmeter. In the following, we will discuss seismic isolation and gravity response for three strainmeter designs, the laser-interferometric, atom-interferometric, and superconducting strainmeters. It should be emphasized that the atom-interferometric and superconducting concepts are still in the beginning of their development and have not been realized yet with scientifically interesting sensitivities.
Laser-interferometric strainmeters The most sensitive gravity strainmeters, namely the large-scale GW detectors, use laser interferometry to read out the relative displacement between mirror pairs forming the test masses. Each test mass in these detectors is suspended from a seismically isolated platform, with the suspension itself providing additional seismic isolation. Section 2.1.1 introduced a simplified response and isolation model based on a harmonic oscillator characterized by a resonance frequency ω0 and viscous damping γ6. In a multi-stage isolation and suspension system as realized in GW detectors (see for example [37, 121]), coupling between multiple oscillators cannot be neglected, and is fundamental to the seismic isolation performance, but the basic features can still be explained with the simplified isolation and response model of Eqs. (2) and (3). The signal output of the interferometer is proportional to the relative displacement between test masses. Since seismic noise is approximately uncorrelated between two distant test masses, the differential measurement itself cannot reject seismic noise as in gravity gradiometers. Without seismic isolation, the dominant signal would be seismic strain, i.e., the distance change between test masses due to elastic deformation of the ground, with a value of about 10−15 Hz−1/2 at 50 Hz (assuming kilometer-scale arm lengths). At the same time, without seismically isolated test masses, the gravity signal can only come from the ground response to gravity fluctuations as described in Section 2.1.3, and from the Shapiro time delay as described in Section 2.1.2.
One of the best horror cards of the 1950s, the classic Curse of the Demon lobby #5, featuring a stunning close-up of the monster; ironically, this scene with the actual demon was added by the producers, over the objections of the film's director, Jacques Tourneur, who wanted to keep the threat more mysterious and unseen.
youtu.be/KcPcJ9ycEu4?t=2m22s Full Feature
This atmospheric British film, about a psychologist investigating a devil worshipping cult, features one of the most memorable creatures to come from horror films of the 1950s. The incredible monster showcased on this frightening one sheet is actually based on a woodcut print from a 1650s book on demonology. And even though the demon appears on this one sheet and in the film, director Jacques Tourneur didn't want to depict it, feeling that the mystery of what it looked like outweighed showing it.
Curse of the Demon / Night of the Demon
Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment
1957/58 / B&W / 1:78 anamorphic 16:9 / 82, 95 min. / Street Date August 13, 2002 / $24.95
Starring Dana Andrews, Peggy Cummins, Niall MacGinnis, Maurice Denham, Athene Seyler
Cinematography Ted Scaife
Production Designer Ken Adam
Special Effects George Blackwell, S.D. Onions, Wally Veevers
Film Editor Michael Gordon
Original Music Clifton Parker
Written by Charles Bennett and Hal E. Chester from the story Casting the Runes by Montague R. James
Produced by Frank Bevis, Hal E. Chester
Directed by Jacques Tourneur
Reviewed by Glenn Erickson
Savant champions a lot of genre movies but only infrequently does one appear like Jacques Tourneur's superlative Curse of the Demon. It's simply better than the rest -- an intelligent horror film with some very good scares. It occupies a stylistic space that sums up what's best in ghost stories and can hold its own with most any supernatural film ever made. Oh, it's also a great entertainment that never fails to put audiences at the edge of their seats.
What's more, Columbia TriStar has shown uncommon respect for their genre output by including both versions of Curse of the Demon on one disc. Savant has full coverage on the versions and their restoration below, following his thorough and analytical (read: long-winded and anal) coverage of the film itself.
Synopsis:
Dr. John Holden (Dana Andrews), a scientist and professional debunker of superstitious charlatans, arrives in England to help Professor Henry Harrington (Maurice Denham) assault the phony cult surrounding Dr. Julian Karswell (Niall McGinnis). But Harrington has mysteriously died and Holden becomes involved with his niece Joanna (Peggy Cummins), who thinks Karswell had something to do with it. Karswell's 'tricks' confuse the skeptical Holden, but he stubbornly holds on to his conviction that he's " ... not a sucker, like 90% of the human race." That is, until the evidence mounts that Harrington was indeed killed by a demon summoned from Hell, and that Holden is the next intended victim!
The majority of horror films are fantasies in which we accept supernatural ghosts, demons and monsters as part of a deal we've made with the authors: they dress the fantasy in an attractive guise and arrange the variables into an interesting pattern, and we agree to play along for the sake of enjoyment. When it works the movies can resonate with personal meaning. Even though Dracula and Frankenstein are unreal, they are relevant because they're aligned with ideas and themes in our subconscious.
Horror films that seriously confront the no-man's land between rational reality and supernatural belief have a tough time of it. Everyone who believes in God knows that the tug o' war between rationality and faith in our culture has become so clogged with insane belief systems it's considered impolite to dismiss people who believe in flying saucers or the powers of crystals or little glass pyramids. One of Dana Andrews' key lines in Curse of the Demon, defending his dogged skepticism against those urging him to have an open mind, is his retort, "If the world is a dark place ruled by Devils and Demons, we all might as well give up right now." Curse of the Demon balances itself between skepticism and belief with polite English manners, letting us have our fun as it lays its trap. We watch Andrews roll his eyes and scoff at the feeble séance hucksters and the dire warnings of a foolish-looking necromancer. Meanwhile, a whole dark world of horror sneaks up on him. The film's intelligent is such that we're not offended by its advocacy of dark forces or even its literal, in-your-face demon.
The remarkable Curse of the Demon was made in England for Columbia but is gloriously unaffected by that company's zero-zero track record with horror films. Producer Hal E. Chester would seem an odd choice to make a horror classic after producing Joe Palooka films and acting as a criminal punk in dozens of teen crime movies. The obvious strong cards are writer Charles Bennett, the brains behind several classic English Hitchcock pictures (who 'retired' into meaningless bliss writing for schlockmeister Irwin Allen) and Jacques Tourneur, a master stylist who put Val Lewton on the map with Cat People and I Walked With a Zombie. Tourneur made interesting Westerns (Canyon Passage, Great Day in the Morning) and perhaps the most romantic film noir, Out of the Past. By the late '50s he was on what Andrew Sarris in his American Film called 'a commercial downgrade'. The critic lumped Curse of the Demon with low budget American turkeys like The Fearmakers. 1
Put Tourneur with an intelligent script, a decent cameraman and more than a minimal budget and great things could happen. We're used to watching Corman Poe films, English Hammer films and Italian Bavas and Fredas, all the while making excuses for the shortcomings that keep them in the genre ghetto (where they all do quite well, thank you). There's even a veiled resentment against upscale shockers like The Innocents that have resources (money, time, great actors) denied our favorite toilers in the genre realm. Curse of the Demon is above all those considerations. It has name actors past their prime and reasonable production values. Its own studio (at least in America) released it like a genre quickie, double-billed with dreck like The Night the World Exploded and The Giant Claw. They cut it by 13 minutes, changed its title (to ape The Curse of Frankenstein?) and released a poster featuring a huge, slavering demon monster that some believe was originally meant to be barely glimpsed in the film itself. 2
Horror movies can work on more than one level but Curse of the Demon handles several levels and then some. The narrative sets up John Holden as a professional skeptic who raises a smirking eyebrow to the open minds of his colleagues. Unlike most second-banana scientists in horror films, they express divergent points of view. Holden just sees himself as having common sense but his peers are impressed by the consistency of demonological beliefs through history. Maybe they all saw Christensen's Witchcraft through the Ages, which might have served as a primer for author Charles Bennett. Smart dialogue allows Holden to score points by scoffing at the then-current "regression to past lives" scam popularized by the Bridey Murphy craze. 3 While Holden stays firmly rooted to his position, coining smart phrases and sarcastic put-downs of believers, the other scientists are at least willing to consider alternate possibilities. Indian colleague K.T. Kumar (Peter Elliott) keeps his opinion to himself. But when asked, he politely states that he believes entirely in the world of demons! 4
Holden may think he has the truth by the tail but it takes Kindergarten teacher Joanna Harrington (Peggy Cummins of Gun Crazy fame) to show him that being a skeptic doesn't mean ignoring facts in front of one's face. Always ready for a drink (a detail added to tailor the part to Andrews?), Holden spends the first couple of reels as interested in pursuing Miss Harrington, as he is the devil-worshippers. The details and coincidences pile up with alarming speed -- the disappearing ink untraceable by the lab, the visual distortions that might be induced by hypnosis, the pages torn from his date book and the parchment of runic symbols. Holden believes them to be props in a conspiracy to draw him into a vortex of doubt and fear. Is he being set up the way a Voodoo master cons his victim, by being told he will die, with fabricated clues to make it all appear real? Holden even gets a bar of sinister music stuck in his head. It's the title theme -- is this a wicked joke on movie soundtracks?
Speak of the Devil...
This brings us to the wonderful character of Julian Karswell, the kiddie-clown turned multi-millionaire cult leader. The man who launched Alfred Hitchcock as a maker of sophisticated thrillers here creates one of the most interesting villains ever written, one surely as good as any of Hitchcock's. In the short American cut Karswell is a shrewd games-player who shows Holden too many of his cards and finally outsmarts himself. The longer UK cut retains the full depth of his character.
Karswell has tapped into the secrets of demonology to gain riches and power, yet he tragically recognizes that he is as vulnerable to the forces of Hell as are the cowering minions he controls through fear. Karswell's coven means business. It's an entirely different conception from the aesthetic salon coffee klatch of The Seventh Victim, where nothing really supernatural happens and the only menace comes from a secret society committing new crimes to hide old ones.
Karswell keeps his vast following living in fear, and supporting his extravagant lifestyle under the idea that Evil is Good, and Good Evil. At first the Hobart Farm seems to harbor religious Christian fundamentalists who have turned their backs on their son. Then we find out that they're Karswell followers, living blighted lives on cursed acreage and bled dry by their cultist "leader." Karswell's mum (Athene Seyler) is an inversion of the usual insane Hitchcock mother. She lovingly resists her son's philosophy and actively tries to help the heroes. That's in the Night version, of course. In the shorter American cut she only makes silly attempts to interest Joanna in her available son and arranges for a séance. Concerned by his "negativity", Mother confronts Julian on the stairs. He has no friends, no wife, no family. He may be a mass extortionist but he's still her baby. Karswell explains that by exploiting his occult knowledge, he's immersed himself forever in Evil. "You get nothing for nothing"
Karswell is like the Devil on Earth, a force with very limited powers that he can't always control. By definition he cannot trust any of his own minions. They're unreliable, weak and prone to double-cross each other, and they attract publicity that makes a secret society difficult to conceal. He can't just kill Holden, as he hasn't a single henchman on the payroll. He instead summons the demon, a magic trick he's only recently mastered. When Karswell turns Harrington away in the first scene we can sense his loneliness. The only person who can possibly understand is right before him, finally willing to admit his power and perhaps even tolerate him. Karswell has no choice but to surrender Harrington over to the un-recallable Demon. In his dealings with the cult-debunker Holden, Karswell defends his turf but is also attempting to justify himself to a peer, another man who might be a potential equal. It's more than a duel of egos between a James Bond and a Goldfinger, with arrogance and aggression masking a mutual respect; Karswell knows he's taken Lewton's "wrong turning in life," and will have to pay for it eventually.
Karswell eventually earns Holden's respect, especially after the fearful testimony of Rand Hobart. It's taken an extreme demonstration to do it, but Holden budges from his smug position. He may not buy all of the demonology hocus-pocus but it's plain enough that Karswell or his "demon" is going to somehow rub him out. Seeking to sneak the parchment back into Karswell's possession, Holden becomes a worthy hero because he's found the maturity to question his own preconceptions. Armed with his rational, cool head, he's a force that makes Karswell -- without his demon, of course -- a relative weakling. Curse of the Demon ends in a classic ghost story twist, with just desserts dished out and balance recovered. The good characters are less sure of their world than when they started, but they're still able to cope. Evil has been defeated not by love or faith, but by intellect.
Curse of the Demon has the Val Lewton sensibility as has often been cited in Tourneur's frequent (and very effective) use of the device called the Lewton "Bus" -- a wholly artificial jolt of fast motion and noise interrupting a tense scene. There's an ultimate "bus" at the end when a train blasts in and sets us up for the end title. It "erases" the embracing actors behind it and I've always thought it had to be an inspiration for the last shot of North by NorthWest. The ever-playful Hitchcock was reportedly a big viewer of fantastic films, from which he seems to have gotten many ideas. He's said to have dined with Lewton on more than one occasion (makes sense, they were at one time both Selznick contractees) and carried on a covert competition with William Castle, of all people.
Visually, Tourneur's film is marvelous, effortlessly conjuring menacing forests lit in the fantastic Mario Bava mode by Ted Scaife, who was not known as a genre stylist. There are more than a few perfunctory sets, with some unflattering mattes used for airport interiors, etc.. Elsewhere we see beautiful designs by Ken Adam in one of his earliest outings. Karswell's ornate floor and central staircase evoke an Escher print, especially when visible/invisible hands appear on the banister. A hypnotic, maze-like set for a hotel corridor is also tainted by Escher and evokes a sense of the uncanny even better than the horrid sounds Holden hears. The build-up of terror is so effective that one rather unconvincing episode (a fight with a Cat People - like transforming cat) does no harm. Other effects, such as the demon footprints appearing in the forest, work beautifully.
In his Encyclopedia of Horror Movies Phil Hardy very rightly relates Curse of the Demon's emphasis on the visual to the then just-beginning Euro-horror subgenre. The works of Bava, Margheriti and Freda would make the photographic texture of the screen the prime element of their films, sometimes above acting and story logic.
Columbia TriStar's DVD of Curse of the Demon / Night of the Demon presents both versions of this classic in one package. American viewers saw an effective but abbreviated cut-down. If you've seen Curse of the Demon on cable TV or rented a VHS or a laser anytime after 1987, you're not going to see anything different in the film. In 1987 Columbia happened to pull out the English cut when it went to re-master. When the title came up as Night of the Demon, they just slugged in the Curse main title card and let it go.
From such a happy accident (believe me, nobody in charge at Columbia at the time would have purposely given a film like this a second glance) came a restoration at least as wonderful as the earlier reversion of The Fearless Vampire Killers to its original form. Genre fans were taken by surprise and the Laserdisc became a hot item that often traded for hundreds of dollars. 6
Back in film school Savant had been convinced that ever seeing the long, original Night cut was a lost cause. An excellent article in the old Photon magazine in the early '70s 5, before such analytical work was common, accurately laid out the differences between the two versions, something Savant needs to do sometime with The Damned and These Are the Damned. The Photon article very accurately describes the cut scenes and what the film lost without them, and certainly inspired many of the ideas here.
Being able to see the two versions back-to-back shows exactly how they differ. Curse omits some scenes and rearranges others. Gone is some narration from the title sequence, most of the airplane ride, some dialogue on the ground with the newsmen and several scenes with Karswell talking to his mother. Most crucially missing are Karswell's mother showing Joanna the cabalistic book everyone talks so much about and Holden's entire visit to the Hobart farm to secure a release for his examination of Rand Hobart. Of course the cut film still works (we loved the cut Curse at UCLA screenings and there are people who actually think it's better) but it's nowhere near as involving as the complete UK version. Curse also reshuffles some events, moving Holden's phantom encounter in the hallway nearer the beginning, which may have been to get a spooky scene in the middle section or to better disguise the loss of whole scenes later. The chop-job should have been obvious. The newly imposed fades and dissolves look awkward. One cut very sloppily happens right in the middle of a previous dissolve.
Night places both Andrews and Cummins' credits above the title and gives McGinnis an "also starring" credit immediately afterwards. Oddly, Curse sticks Cummins afterwards and relegates McGinnis to the top of the "also with" cast list. Maybe with his role chopped down, some Columbia executive thought he didn't deserve the billing?
Technically, both versions look just fine, very sharp and free of digital funk that would spoil the film's spooky visual texture. Night of the Demon is the version to watch for both content and quality. It's not perfect but has better contrast and less dirt than the American version. Curse has more emulsion scratches and flecking white dandruff in its dark scenes, yet looks fine until one sees the improvement of Night. Both shows are widescreen enhanced (hosanna), framing the action at its original tighter aspect ratio.
It's terrific that Columbia TriStar has brought out this film so thoughtfully, even though some viewers are going to be confused when their "double feature" disc appears to be two copies of the same movie. Let 'em stew. This is Savant's favorite release so far this year.
On a scale of Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor, Curse of the Demon / Night of the Demon rates:
Movie: Excellent
Footnotes:
Made very close to Curse of the Demon and starring Dana Andrews, The Fearmakers (great title) was a Savant must-see until he caught up with it in the UA collection at MGM. It's a pitiful no-budgeter that claims Madison Avenue was providing public relations for foreign subversives, and is negligible even in the lists of '50s anti-Commie films.
Return
Curse of the Demon's Demon has been the subject of debate ever since the heyday of Famous Monsters of Filmland. From what's on record it's clear that producer Chester added or maximized the shots of the creature, a literal visualization of a fiery, brimstone-smoking classical woodcut demon that some viewers think looks ridiculous. Bennett and Tourneur's original idea was to never show a demon but the producer changed that. Tourneur probably directed most of the shots, only to have Chester over-use them. To Savant's thinking, the demon looks great. It is first perceived as an ominous sound, a less strident version of the disturbing noise made by Them! Then it manifests itself visually as a strange disturbance in the sky (bubbles? sparks? early slit-scan?) followed by a billowing cloud of sulphurous smoke (a dandy effect not exploited again until Close Encounters of the Third Kind). The long-shot demon is sometimes called the bicycle demon because he's a rod puppet with legs that move on a wheel-rig. Smoke belches from all over his scaly body. Close-ups are provided by a wonderfully sculpted head 'n' shoulders demon with articulated eyes and lips, a full decade or so before Carlo Rambaldi started engineering such devices.
Most of the debate centers on how much Demon should have been shown with the general consensus that less would have been better. People who dote on Lewton-esque ambivalence say that the film's slow buildup of rationality-versus demonology is destroyed by the very real Demon's appearance in the first scene, and that's where they'd like it removed or radically reduced. The Demon is so nicely integrated into the cutting (the giant foot in the first scene is a real jolt) that it's likely that Tourneur himself filmed it all, perhaps expecting the shots to be shorter or more obscured. It is also possible that the giant head was a post-Tourneur addition - it doesn't tie in with the other shots as well (especially when it rolls forward rather stiffly) and is rather blunt. Detractors lump it in with the gawd-awful head of The Black Scorpion, which is filmed the same way and almost certainly was an afterthought - and also became a key poster image. This demon head matches the surrounding action a lot better than did the drooling Scorpion.
Savant wouldn't change Curse of the Demon but if you put a gun to my head I'd shorten most of the shots in its first appearance, perhaps eliminating all close-ups except for the final, superb shot of the the giant claw reaching for Harrington / us.
Kumar, played (I assume) by an Anglo actor, immediately evokes all those Indian and other Third World characters in Hammer films whose indigenous cultures invariably hold all manner of black magic and insidious horror. When Hammer films are repetitious it's because they take eighty minutes or so to convince the imagination-challenged English heroes to even consider the premise of the film as being real. In Curse of the Demon, Holden's smart-tongued dismissal of outside viewpoints seems much more pigheaded now than it did in 1957, when heroes confidently defended conformist values without being challenged. Kumar is a scientist but also probably a Hindu or a Sikh. He has no difficulty reconciling his faith with his scientific detachment. Holden is far too tactful to call Kumar a crazy third-world guru but that's probably what he's thinking. He instead politely ignores him. Good old Kumar then saves Holden's hide with some timely information. I hope Holden remembered to thank him.
There's an unstated conclusion in Curse of the Demon: Holden's rigid disbelief of the supernatural means he also does not believe in a Christian God with its fundamentally spiritual faith system of Good and Evil, saints and devils, angels and demons. Horror movies that deal directly with religious symbolism and "real faith" can be hypocritical in their exploitation and brutal in their cheap toying with what are for many people sacred personal concepts. I'm thinking of course of The Exorcist here. That movie has all the grace of a reporter who shows a serial killer's atrocity photos to a mother whose child has just been kidnapped. Curse of the Demon hasn't The Exorcist's ruthless commercial instincts but instead has the modesty not to pretend to be profound, or even "real." Yet it expresses our basic human conflict between rationality and faith very nicely.
Savant called Jim Wyrnoski, who was associated with Photon, in an effort to find out more about the article, namely who wrote it. It was very well done and I've never forgotten it; I unfortunately loaned my copy out to good old Jim Ursini and it disappeared. Obviously, a lot of the ideas here, I first read there. Perhaps a reader who knows better how to take care of their belongings can help me with the info? Ursini and Alain Silvers' More Things than are Dreamt Of Limelight, 1994, analyzes Curse of the Demon (and many other horror movies) in the context of its source story.
This is a true story: Cut to 2000. Columbia goes to re-master Curse of the Demon and finds that the fine-grain original of the English version is missing. The original long version of the movie may be lost forever. A few months later a collector appears who says he bought it from another unnamed collector and offers to trade it for a print copy of the American version, which he prefers. Luckily, an intermediary helps the collector follow up on his offer and the authorities are not contacted about what some would certainly call stolen property. The long version is now once again safe. Studios clearly need to defend their property but many collectors have "items" they personally have acquired legally. More often than you might think, such finds come about because studios throw away important elements. If the studios threaten prosecution, they will find that collectors will never approach them. They'd probably prefer to destroy irreplaceable film to avoid being criminalized.
Bridgei2i is very good provider of marketing analytics. Their marketing analytics ecosystem that provides a holistic view of the marketing data environment, enables innovation & technology for marketing automation, forecasting, and personalization and helps CMOs drive operationalization of analytics for improved effectiveness and ROI. They are very efficient. For more... www.bridgei2i.com/marketing-analytics-solutions
Sydney Padua's cartoon effort here seems to be the world's only coherent effort to graphically visualize a full-scale Analytical Engine.
Illustration of a web analytics framework - data gathering, data reporting, data analysis - then the bonus stage of optimisation.
Inspired by a blog post by Avinash Kaushik (Occam's Razor)
www.kaushik.net/avinash/web-analytics-consulting-framewor...
Have you checked out Google Analytics? I have been using it for about two months on my blog, and it is very interesting to track...
Sure, it's not about quantity, but I do like the graphs :)
The Map Overlay may be my favorite of all! how many people visited the site from Sri Lanka? you can find it out with Google Analytics!
Have you checked out Google Analytics? I have been using it for about two months on my blog, and it is very interesting to track...
Sure, it's not about quantity, but I do like the graphs :)
There has been a new surge of referrer spam which damages data sets for Google Analytics, sometimes seriously distorting the number of sessions and page views, especially for smaller businesses.
Attackers may be doing this via bots, botnets and ghost sites, to generate traffic and sales leads,...
blog.ukngroup.com/new-wave-referrer-spam-affecting-data-g...
WiFi-based retail analytics provider Euclid has launched what it’s calling Euclid Connect t.co/N7EDHRQO6n t.co/b9NY9q9BDl (via Twitter twitter.com/Hellen0679/status/774505841877712896)