View allAll Photos Tagged complexity
complexity of human relations in respect to their environment! a visible spectacle for those who experience!
So I’m skipping a couple of dolls to review to make way for Prosperous Complexity Kyori Sato because I just can’t wait to do a review on her. Mmmkay? Well here we go. Among the dolls from the Fashion Royalty line available at the Integrity Toys Luxe Life Convention Souvenir Shop I chose Kyori and I’m glad I did. If you have followed me for years I had a major issue with Kyori having the same stereotypical East Asian look with her every single release in the last five years or so. So I’ve been begging and pleading that the designers give her a darker skin tone and that has come true for her this year, twice actually. While Karma Kyori is in the Latino skin tone, Prosperous Complexity is in Hungarian. As the Asian character in the Fashion Royalty line the paler skin tones are usually assigned to her and while she has this potential to be a chameleon like any other character, the designers haven’t really been creative with her to make her look different. As an Asian person I have a problem with that because Asians come in varying skin tones, Asians love to color their hair and Asians love to try different looks. I felt like Kyori don’t get much attention because she’s pidgeon holed into having this one look. A look that has been recycled over and over again that people stop buying her and I can’t blame them. I personally don’t want five pale Kyoris with the same black hair and red lips in my collection. Because of a darker skin tone she looks more like South East Asian which gives us a different perspective on how Asians should look like and this is just one of the many looks we see on Asian women.
Among the dolls from Fashion Royalty I would say Kyori was one of the better ones because her look didn’t border on matronly like the other characters. Her look is feminine and yet edgy and that is true to who she is. While I didn’t like the fact that multiples of them in the collection where in the same hairstyle this high ponytail actually worked for her. With Fashion Royalty we’ve seen inspirations from Christian Lacroix but half of them actually had elements of Louis Vuitton Fall 2009 Ready-to-Wear, the collection that inspired Perk Colette, Fire Within Jordan, The Great Pretender Lilith and other dolls released in 2010. The difference between then was that they were direct copies of the fashions shown on the runway and were made in miniature while with the Luxe Life Collection they borrowed elements from Louis Vuitton and put a different spin on the design. Kyori’s dress for example borrows some details from the first look that was presented on the show with model Magdalena Frackowiak. The lace overlay, the belted waist, the pleating detail of the skirt were similar but the top was completely redesigned. They did the same with Gilded Oligarch Tatyana, Opulence for the Bold Vanessa and I believe with Subtle Affluence Eugenia as well. The shoes and the bags were also inspired by Louis Vuitton from the same collection and while I do love that Kyori’s bag is actually functioning with a zipper at the bottom to expand the size of the bag, the aesthetic of the design feels outdated. Now I can go back to the 80s and 90s for some fashion history with my dolls but these fashions from a decade ago seems out of style.
Now while I like this version of Kyori there are some details that I think could have been better executed. As pretty as the dress is I don’t like that the lining of the skirt is a separate mini skirt piece exposing the wrong side of the nude fabric which makes it look unfinished. I would rather see the skirt fully lined with a tulle petticoat added. I have the most reservations about her face screening. She has the same Idol Worship face design that has the And Another Thing eyebrows. This time the screening didn’t work well with Prosperous Complexity. I wished they could have given her eyeshadow that airbrushed look that they do with other dolls but because they didn’t I am under the impression that they don’t give much attention to Kyori. The top layer of her eyeshadow gives that gradient look but I find that too much. They could do away with that I feel. The Faded Desert eyes with these brows could have worked better on this version of Kyori. I also find her lips too pink. Perhaps I wouldn’t blame it on the choice of color made by the designers as I know the intensity of the paint colors varies depending on how it was applied by the factory workers. But I feel that her lips were meant to be subtle, like almost the same color as the nude fabric of her dress. In terms of skin tone match there’s a slight color difference with her head and her body. This isn’ as good as Total Betty Ayumi but this isn’t as bad as Karma Kyori either. My most favorite parts about her are her boots as they actually have zippers on the side so you don’t have to undo the ribbon laces. I also love that she comes with new extra hands that can actually hold bags without the use of rubber bands. None of the past hand sculpts used for Fashion Royalty were this functional. These are the same extra hands that came with the Rupaul Kitty Gurl Pink doll and this has totally elevated FR on another level of cool and I live for that.
I popped along to the Seal Sands Industrial Estate tonight to grab a few shots. I done a lot of driving around the area before I found this place to stop. I'd literally been out of the car a few minutes when a van pulled up as I was composing this scene. Noticing the word 'Fire' on the bonnet I realised I was about to be sent on my way so I quickly focused and hit the shutter button. Two fire officers got out of the van and one of them asked me what I was doing. Taking pictures I said. Of what? He asked. Of these grills and those chimneys I said. Why? he asked. Because it looks nice I said! I didn't come across cheeky, I simply answered his questions honestly. He then went into a scripted spiel about needing permission to take pictures of the industry and taking my details and passing then onto the police. As he was talking I looked at his sidekick and recognised him instantly. I know you! I said. I signed your girlfriend up for Sky. The barrier instantly dropped and they said I should finish taking my shot and be on my way because I was on CCTV. I've spent many nights shooting in that area and that's the first time I've been stopped and asked to move along. Maybe it was because I was so close to some pipes on this occasion.
Each square is 6x6.
Sharpie on drawing paper.
Concern: The Past
Principles: Figure to Ground & Rendering Form
It took me a while to figure how I wanted to pursue the idea of "the past" because it can be interpreted on many levels including a historical, personal, or philosophical perspective. I eventually decided to incorporate feminity with the past that utilized high contrast design principles to mimic a figure to ground relationship and a minimalist design. My work was inspired by Ellsworth Kelly's color-blocking techniques and Kara Walker's politically stirring, high-contrast work. Each square is meant to depict the relationship between men and women overtime and how times leads to a continual growth of complexities in society. The first square (from the left) shows an equal balance between men (black) and women (white) because before developed society ever emerged, men and women were merely creatures who served equal purposes in this world — to survive. As humans became more intelligent, men in developed society found ways to minimize a women's voice and diminish her importance / exploit her well-being for their own purpose. Eventually, by the 20th century, women took great strives in American society, and women were granted the right to vote by 1920. The newly emerging lines in the third square represent this first wave of feminism. The fourth square thus depicts the second wave of feminism where women entered the workforce more rigorously in the 1970's. Finally, the last square depicts the modern era — one where the complexity between the sexes has grown the greatest. Because women were marginalized so greatly for centuries before, we can no longer reach the simple harmony and equality of the past, but emerging voices have helped acquire more rights for women within the political, economic, and social constructs of society. The last square also appears so circuitous to underscore the entangled issues of race and sexual orientation in the modern era. Feminism and the idea of feminity needs to be intertwined within all human beings, not just expressed or only accepted in women. As these complexities continue to grow on the page, progress will be further achieved.
In many ways, you probably know how to live a simple life, but do you want to? Many want the complexity and constant drama of their lives. This is something we each have to look at honestly. However, some of us really want simplicity, and some would want it if they knew what it felt like to live more simply and at peace.
With all these computing around me, all those little gadgets, all those cars parked around office, burning of fuels at traffic signals, new of terrorist attacks around the world, economy going down, prices rising up... with all that is said and done... When I just feel there is nothing left for me in this complex world, I return to where I always feel like home... I am back to Karoor... That Jutts clans with their simple yet organized way of living make me feel simple... Simple as it is at the core level.. Just less than a 40 min drive from the twin city is this wonderful place.
Taken: Just when you cross Simly Dam, one can see this colony on the way to Karoor & Ban. A sure sight for those who knows the blessing of simplicity..
I was attracted to this photo, posted by Tim Wright, because it shows the up lines signal gantry between Chester No.4 and 3A/3. By the time I went to Chester in spring 1971 the five signal arms on the right had been replaced by a colour light signal obscured by No.4 box.
The photo shows an Altrinchamian Railway Excursion Society Holyhead & Brymbo Special departing from platform 13/14, 'back of the box' on Sunday 21st August 1966, it will cross to the down fast line through a double junction worked by No. 4.
Loco 60532 'Blue Peter' worked the train from Manchester Central to Mouldsworth and Chester to Holyhead, then back to Manchester, gwr locos 9630 & 9610 worked it from Mouldsworth to Wrexham via the WM&CQR and then back to Chester.
With a scan of the kidnapper’s transmat safely within the sonic, Samuel, Vale and myself make our way back to the Tardis. Given the vast complexities of isolating a transmat beam and successfully reversing it without some fault arising due to the transmat not being properly calibrated, it’s far more sensible to track the signal rather than reverse it. Not to mention the fact that the only logical conclusion that can be made for a transmat being used in this era means time travel is also at play. Especially now given that the Daleks are gone and Cybermen are in such a sad state that it'll take them millennia to master teleportation again.
I do hope this transmit was constructed after the 41st century. Almost all transmats after that period have a unique microcode embedded in the signal it uses to transport goods or people. How else are you supposed to stop the potential of transmats interfering with one another? Gosh that would be terrible. Then again, it’s not like that hasn’t happened before. Infact, I’m pretty sure some cargo pirates made a living off of that fault in older transmats. Hopefully, whoever these time travelling abductors are, they’re from a point in time after the 41st century. If not this goes from simply tracking back a signal to trying to find a needle in haystack.
Probably best not to mention that possibility to either Vale or Samuel. At least, not until I’m certain. Given how I’ve only just finished regenerating it’s possible my mind is still in a bit of a puddle…….cuddle……muddle!
Clearly more so than I thought. Once I’ve helped get the boy safely home I’ll need to spend some time in the zero room to properly recover from the regeneration, and more importantly to get my head in order. As we all turn the corner and lay eyes upon the familiar shape of that old police telephone box, I suddenly realise something.
The Doctor: Do either of you have my key?
Vale: Your key? For what?
The Doctor: For my antimatter disrupter.
Vale: You need an antimatter disrupter? Why?
The Doctor: I was being sarcastic, nobody needs a key for an antimatter disruptor, I’m asking if either of you have my key for the Tardis.
Samuel: Your time machine needs a key to start it?
The Doctor: No! But I need the key to unlock the door! It’s a time machine after all, you can’t be too cautious. Do either of you have it?
Samuel: I don’t think so…
Vale: I didn’t see any key when we were inside it last. Speaking of which, if you need a key to open the doors how come we were able to get into it last time with a key?
The Doctor: It’ll have been the help the pilot protocol. Since I’d only just regenerated the Tardis will have taken me to the nearest thing in range with a medical bay, thus why it also disabled the locks to let you both in.
Samuel: Then how come it doesn’t want to let us in now? It’s not exactly like we did anything to help you recover.
The Doctor: No you didn’t, but the Tardis will have detected that my regeneration is all but complete thus it reinstated the security protocols.
Samuel: So what? We’re locked outside of your ship? Then how are we going to get back Jerro!?
The Doctor: Oh that's simple. Like this.
I click my fingers together and the sound faintly echoes through the corridor as both Vale and Samuel wait for something to happen. For a good few seconds, nothing does. Clearly the old girl is starting to feel her age. But then, before I have a chance to consider clicking my fingers again, the door unlocks and opens to reveal the console room. They appear caught off guard to learn that I can unlock the Tardis with a snap of my fingers and to an extent, I was when I first learned I could do it as well. Thank you, River.
Vale: Did you just….?
Samuel: I think he did…..
As I place my hand on the Tardis door I can feel her humming as the engines begin to come alive once again. We may have aged, old girl, but moments like these never get old. Even after nearly five thousand years travelling with her. Before I have a chance to enjoy the moment, she swings open both doors and to my shock she’s changed the console room……again.
The Doctor: Oh look at you, old girl. You’ve redecorated. Aren’t you beautiful?
Given my vague post-regenerative state when both Vale and Samuel found me in the Tardis, I can’t help but wonder if this change in desktop theme is by accident or by her design. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time for either. Part of me also can’t help but wonder if I was still connected to the telepathic circuits whilst unconscious. Maybe she realised the struggle that was going on within me. Maybe she changed the console room to try and help me forget what my previous incarnation did.
A kind gesture.
But we can never truly escape our past.
Samuel: It’s…..different….
Vale: How? How has it done that?
The Doctor: It’s nothing, trust me. All that’s happened is a small change of the desktop theme. Ah! There it is!
They both seem baffled by what I could possibly mean as I point in their general direction as they both step into the Tardis.
The Doctor: I was worried she might have removed of it when I wasn’t looking.
Samuel: You were worried she’d get rid……of a coat rack? Wait, she?
The Doctor: Trust me, we’ve been having this back and forth for centuries. She think it’s stupid to have a coat rack in the main console room when I haven’t worn a long coat, hat or scarf for quite a few bodies in a row.
Vale: What are you talking about? She? Bodies?
The Doctor: ‘She’ is called the Tardis. You’re standing inside her and she’s going to help me get your friend back.
Samuel: And the bodies part?
The Doctor: Well when you say like that, you make me sound like I’m some sort of murderous freak.
Vale:…..Are you?
The Doctor: Not to my knowledge.
Samuel: That’s…..not exactly reassuring.
The Doctor: Fine, long story short I’m an alien with the ability to regenerate where my body completely transforms and I in effect become an entirely different man, or sometimes woman. Had a few of those in the past, boy were they exciting. But yeah, any questions?
Neither of them say a thing, instead choosing to look at me as if I were some sort of bizarre mythical creature to them. Maybe I am, perhaps that’s the legacy of the Time Lords. Little more than mythical beings that become the stories told to children. The only difference is that unlike most of those stories, the Time Lords were real. Well…I suppose the Lochness monster is also real even though it was actually a Skarasen being used by the Zygons, but who am I to judge how history chooses to romanticise historical events?
Well….I should probably be the one to judge it actually….last of the Time Lords and all…..it really is my responsibility to uphold the doctrine. Then again, I’ve flouted it almost from the moment I left Gallifrey. Not to mention the Time Lords themselves abandoned that principle long ago when they decided to fight the Time War, though it’s not like they had any choice in the matter really.
Samuel: Ummmm…..ok……….
The Doctor: Now, let’s see if we can find the people who abducted your friend.
I’m momentarily caught off guard by the absence of the sonic screwdriver port. Clearly she's decide to reorganise the console again.I do wish she'd let me know before she did it. Fortunately, the Tardis realises my momentary pause and quickly directs me to the port’s new position. Directly under the monitor, good choice old girl. As I plug the screwdriver into the console, and the Tardis begins to track the signal and lock onto the abductor’s timeline I turn back to look at both Samuel and Vale. They both seem rather overwhelmed by the new console room. Come to think of it, is it bigger than the last one?
The Doctor: So what do you think?
Vale. Is it bigger than last time?
Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Samuel: It’s certainly more well lit.
Vale: Cleaner too.
The Doctor: I aim to please.
Even if most of the improvements have absolutely nothing to do with me.
The Doctor: So the……oh…..
The Tardis lets out a faint ding to indicate that it has locked onto the transmat's signal. After a brief moment it manages to identify the ship which took young Jerro and pinpoints a suitable time point along the abductor's timeline for us to intercept them. I briefly check the co-ordinates to see just where they're going. Given how these kidnappers have access to time travel it's also possible they have technology to interfere with other species' time machines.
Valorem.
Curious, I wasn’t aware they had ever developed time travel. No matter, that’s where the people who abducted Jerro went, so that’s where we going.
Samuel: Doctor?
The Doctor: Found him. Locking on to his signal!
I quickly type in the co-ordinates for Valorem and the time date their ship jumped to before racing over to engine release lever.
The Doctor: You may want to hang on to something. The first ride is always the bumpiest.
Before either of them can ask just what I mean, I pull the lever down triggering the dematerialisation circuit as the engines roar to life as they begin to draw power from the Eye of Harmony. The console room jerks sharply as we depart the human colony ship and pass into the time vortex.
Next stop: Valorem.
The Rocca Roveresca is the most important monument of Senigallia, and like all medieval fortresses, can seem, from the outside, a simple and regular structure.
Its complexity is shaped on the inside, where the dislocation of space is labyrinthine and, at first glance, even poorly designed.
Its current structure is due to the will of Giovanni Della Rovere, Lord of the city from 1474 to 1501. He was the son of Federico da Montefeltro, Duke of Urbino that he made available the best architects of the time.
The work was initially entrusted to Luciano Laurana, who designed the residential part of the fortress and the drawbridge that connected Directly opposite the square.
The work was then entrusted to Baccio Pontelli that surrounded the residential part with real defensive structure, to form the quadrilateral at whose angles are placed four massive round towers, connected to each other and the central body, as an organic system of communication, vertical and horizontal. The apparent irregularity of the internal spaces and pathways is therefore a reality desired and sought by the same Pontelli, with the aim to create a sense of disorientation. The monument is therefore divided into two bobbins one incorporated inside the other: the main building, intended to stately home surrounded by the building intended for military defense. This is what distinguishes the senigalliese fortress, unique in its kind. The great architectural complex is the result of successive renovations over the centuries since the first defensive tower of the Roman era. The courtyard provides a reading of the four main stages experienced by Rocca: the first of the third century BC; the second of the fourteenth century; the third in the mid-fifteenth century, the fourth of the eighties of the fifteenth century. These include the Renaissance restructuring predominates over the others. The courtyard is functionally connecting element between the external input, which leads through the drawbridge, the residential part and the military. This courtyard appears typically fifteenth since it was renovated in Rovere era to fulfill the dual use of the barracks yard and backyard of the residence with a typical decentralized cockpit of the Renaissance, yet it retains remarkable remains of the former buildings. Originally it was also a passage that connected the courtyard with the underlying layer, ensuring greater communication and ventilation. Opposite the main entrance we can see a wall of the tower on which you read all the architectural history of the fortress: the Roman basis, the continuation of the fourteenth century Rocchetta, due to the work of the Cardinal Albornoz in 1350, the first XV century fortress, made build a century later by Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta, the signs of age Rovere, consisting in cutting at the top of the male present in previous constructions, following the new requirements due to the introduction of artillery. This part of the fortress, the result of many changes have occurred over time, clearly indicates that the area on which it stands has always been considered a strategic point in the city for the construction of a fort that constitute the core of the defense works. The wall with arches that you see on the right side of the courtyard is part of the fourteenth-century curtain, even if they were strengthened when it became necessary to the expansion of the section of the defensive wall to create shift plans for the artillery, masonry, which They replaced the wooden walkways. The tank of water collection, placed next to the fifteenth cockpit dates from the fourteenth century. It is circular, with a vertical slope slightly pine cone. Its particular location beauty and functionality allows us to state that over the centuries the current court was always intended to free space, more or less wide, surrounded by defensive walls. A similar thing can be said for the entrance: it in all buildings maintained the same position, as evidenced by the performance of the defensive walls of the previous packages. At the top of the main building are developed four towers. The "town chronicles" fifteenth narrate that the first tower to be built is in the sea, north to Fano, the second, the one sea to the east towards Ancona, the third and west towards the front of the square and the last south constructed by the military architect Baccio Pontelli. The succession of the buildings reveals that the most threatening dangers to Senigallia at the end of the fifteenth century were considered those that could come from the sea, was particularly so in periods of construction of the fortress Rovere, when raids by Turks threatened the entire Adriatic coast. This is evidenced by the presence in the north-east side of the fortress, the sea, the few openings and a single only be opened from inside, built later. The towers, despite appearances are all of different sizes and, going around the terrace, you can see how they were built to defend the main building of the fortress, once again highlighting the originality of this monument shows, in fact, as the fortresses are two, one completely incorporated in the other. Through the glass of the structure placed in defense of the restoration, you can see the battlements of the first XV century fortress and the architectural structures that allowed the mobility of the drawbridge. Looking out from one of the towers in the sea you can imagine better what was the defensive potential of the fortress. Its massive structure was surrounded by a moat filled with water, the placing of which was regulated by a system of doors and contained by a wall, roughly circular, as shown by antique designs. All around the terrace are visible loopholes that read IO DUX -I PRE and, outside, the grand culmination of corbels in white Istrian stone which is a pleasant contrast with the burnt brick used for the entire building. As for the internal structure, the residential area is spread over three levels, served by a double staircase, with access from the courtyard. The lower level was dedicated to the garrison and the housing for the officers of the militia, responsible for the defense of the fortress. Down the hall of this apartment terminal it is still possible a re-reading of the phases of construction and renovation of the fortress: the fourteenth-century, the Malatesta of which you can glimpse the spur under the grate, and Della Rovere. The superior rooms (three shows) were reserved to the representation of the Duke residence. The mail room to the terrace floor is part of the area designated by Giovanni Della oak residence of his court in times of emergency. In fact, simultaneously to these apartments, he began building a veritable palace, now destroyed of which only a beautiful coat of arms, presented in a simplified manner on the second floor of this building. The coat of arms of John Della Rovere which consists of a sphinx without wings topped by seven snakes and placed over a crest, was also depicted in a bas-relief placed on the south tower. This room was one of three reception rooms, those in which they could take place the festivals of the court and of which today is only visible this. The establishment was intended to chapel, presumably in the papal era, when the fortress was used as a prison. Through the main staircase of the area destined to the residence, you enter the real ducal apartment. The environment is very simple, given the very limited space as this was considered a residence for times of emergency. You may notice in this room the finely crafted capitals, and on the right of the entrance, the two that do not depict the winged sphinx, emblem of Giovanni Della Rovere. Here also they appear written IO DUX -I PRE that refer to major titles that Della Rovere had: that of the Duke of Sora and that of Prefect of Rome. Even his marriage to Joan Da Montefeltro involved the acquisition, the Della Rovere coat of arms, the so-called "fourth kinship", ie the blue and gold stripes with Aquiletta the Montefeltro family. These arms are inserted in the center of the vaulted ceiling of this apartment and, depending on whether you appear or not the arms of montefeltro you can go back to their dating. In fact, before 1478, the date of marriage, we find nell'arme roveresca two oaks, one of which would be replaced by urbinati bands. The reason of oak leaves and acorns is present on the doors and window frames. Of particular interest is the chapel of this apartment: it is a quadrilateral surmounted by a dome. Remarkable is the solution of the roundness of the corners of the walls through stucco that gives the chapel a harmonious aspect. The barn was a local service of the residential area, mainly characterized by the presence of a large tank probably intended to contain the grain needed for supplies to those who resided in the castle particularly in case of siege. They are located in the basement, in a quadrangular local cells for prisoners. These cramped prisons were obtained from places probably originally structured to be gunner. They are real death cells, as can be seen from the small vents that allowed more than survival, a slow agony. You can not say when it took place the transformation gunboat in cells, probably when the fortress was used as a prison. The path to access the upper floor is visible the ancient Roman defensive tower built of limestone spongy processed into large rectangular ashlar blocks, some of which corroded but overall very well preserved, since the tower was included in the successive restructurings that ' They are protected from the corrosive action of atmospheric agents. To connect these environments was built a beautiful spiral staircase but never used. This is confirmed by the lack of protection works that were supposed to mitigate the danger of steep steps monolithic. No, in fact, you never found traces of a railing. All made of white Istrian stone, it is certainly the most precious piece of the structure both from a stylistic point of view and from the engineering.
Currently it is a museum
Source: it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocca_Roveresca_%28Senigallia%29
IMG_6372 # digitales Fotos, das fototechnisch variiert, auf einer Aluminiumplatte ausgedruckt und manuell bearbeitet wurde
Eine Kurzgeschichte, die ich in dem eBook „Der tolle Mensch“ veröffentlicht habe, animierte mich zu diesem Bild.
Photo captured via Minolta MD Rokkor-X 85mm F/1.7 lens. Spokane Indian Reservation. Selkirk Mountains Range. Okanogan-Colville Xeric Valleys and Foothills section within the Northern Rockies Region. Inland Northwest. Stevens County, Washington. Late October 2020.
Exposure Time: 2 sec. * ISO Speed: ISO-100 * Aperture: F/11 * Bracketing: None * Color Temperature: 6050 K * Film Plug-In: Fuji Provia 100F * Filter: Hoya HMC CIR-PL (⌀55mm) * Elevation: 2,520 feet above sea-level
If I had used my past numbering system for my tree bark photos, this would have been titled "Tree bark, 154."
Copyright J.R. Devaney
Hulen Mall celebrates Texas Christian University's "Horned Frog" colors, purple and white, September 2007
Plants are beginning to grow in the desert. One of them is a ground-hugging little plant that radiates many stems in a circle from the center. (I don't know its name.) The plant is small, only about six inches in diameter. The leaves are tiny. You can walk right by them or over them and not take notice. But if you really look at them, they prove to be amazing. I did some editing on this shot to heighten the detail. You can see the buds forming near the upper left corner.
I completely understood
the complexities
the theta wave
connection
the two hemispheres
of my brain
dreaming as one
outlined in
the yin-yang
details of
light chasing
the dark
side of a half-moon
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.
I have walked by the U.S. Capitol countless times and taken many pictures. But on my Saturday walk, I saw the Capitol from a new angle that showed the complex architecture and the mulitiple design elements: leaded windows, balusters,balconies,columns,windows, and even a fence and lamppost! You can see a lot of detail in the larger sizes.
Central Hong Kong
f5.6 1/500sec Kodak Professional BW400CN Black and White film
Leica IIIf with Leitz 50mm f2.0 rigid 1960 first generation screw mount
The diagram describe the input-output flows in the production of wood-based products. From raw materials/energy/chemicals/water to waste/emissions/water. In between, the products!
Co-designed with Margherita Paleari
Coachwork by Pininfarina
Chassis n° 915.696
Zoute Sale - Bonhams
Estimated : € 600.000 - 800.000
Sold
Zoute Grand Prix 2022
Knokke - Zoute
België - Belgium
October 2022
A development of the pre-war 6C 2300 and 2500, the 6C 2500 Super Sport is the ultimate variant of the elegant, glamorous, and luxurious Alfa Romeos that were developed under the guidance of engineers Vittorio Jano and Wilfredo Ricart (before the latter left to establish Pegaso). Pinin Farina's cabriolet was presented in Lausanne on 4th and 5th October 1946 at the Premières Journées d'Elégance event, which aimed to revive Italian coachbuilding after WW2.
This car boasts arguably the most iconic body style for this model: a design that exhibits Pinin Farina's typical stylistic features such as integrated headlights, flowing and continuous lines, and recessed door handles (also typical of the Ferrari and Cisitalia cars designed by Pinin Farina in this period). It is finished in the beautiful original colour combination of Petrol Green with tan leather interior and beige soft-top.
The specification is state-of-the-art for the time, including a twin-overhead-camshaft engine and independent suspension all round. Alfa Romeo ambitiously raced the 6C 2300 and 2500, amassing an impressive string of victories and podium finishes including 1st and 2nd in the 1937 Mille Miglia; 1, 2, 3 in the 1937 6-hour Targa Abruzzo at Pescara; and another Pescara win in 1938. These successes continued after the end of WW2, including an overall win in the 1950 Targa Florio.
The most technically potent of several 6C 2500 models was the Super Sport. With three Weber carburettors it produced 110bhp even on the low-octane fuel available in Europe at the time. The 6C 2500's relatively stiff frame and four-wheel independent suspension delivered this power to the road much better than the typically cart-sprung live-axle cars of the day. Easier on drivers and passengers, the suspension's supple ride ensued that a competitor would remain alert at the end of the Mille Miglia, as well as enabling the owner of this Gran Turismo Alfa to emerge fresh at the end of a road trip to Cannes.
Their combination of sophisticated engineering, durability, and attractive bodywork has ensured that the 6C 2500 is, and has always been, highly sought after by collectors and performance-minded enthusiasts. Three variants were built post-war, including the two closed versions: one by Carrozzeria Touring of Milan, and one in house by Alfa Romeo.
Most exclusive of the post-war 6C 2500 line was the 6C 2500 Super Sport, built on a short (2.7 metres) chassis and intended exclusively for coachbuilt bodywork. Total production of the 6C 2500 Super Sport was 458 units, of which 75 were built between 1939-1943 and 383 between 1947-1951. According to the Fabio Morlacchi and Stefano Salvetti books, around 63 Super Sport Pinin Farina cabriolets were manufactured after the war. With such an exalted pedigree it is not surprising that the Alfa Romeo 6C 2500 Super Sport should attract the attention of filmmakers, director/producer Joseph L Mankiewicz casting one ('915.834') in his 1954 movie, The Barefoot Contessa, in which it was driven by Humphrey Bogart alongside his co-star, Ava Gardner (photographs and a film extract may be found in the car's history file).
A '2nd series' example, chassis number '915.696 has an exceptionally well-documented history. This particular car boasts matching numbers and colours, the latter an elegant and rare combination, and a body by one of the most prestigious Italian coachbuilders: Carrozzeria Pinin Farina. It is likely the only one to have been ordered with such a colour combination.
The car has a known and documented history from 1948 until today, including more than 50 original document pages; letters to Alfa Romeo in Italy; bills; photographs, etc, all of which contributes to making this car unique. It represents the best of both worlds: a sure protagonist at the most prestigious Concours d'Élégance venues such as Villa d'Este, Chantilly, Pebble Beach, etc while at the same time being an unusual and unexpectedly capable sports car for long-distance competitions (it is eligible for the Mille Miglia and other high profile international rallies).
• Major component identification numbers are as follows:
• Chassis: 915.696 ('2nd series')
• Engine: 928.001
• Pinin Farina body: 153
• Body structure: 10044
• Gearbox: 945.808 (22 x 39)
• Drive shaft: 963.840
• Rear axle: 985.688, 15 x 59
• Weber Carburettors Tipo 36 DO2: 362, 1108, 1112
• Suspension legs: 963.840
Chassis number '915.696' was produced on 25th October 1948 and sold on 11th April 1949 to Mr Edmondo Cornudet of Milan, Italy, who drove the car for the first years of its life. In 1958 Mr Cornudet put his Alfa up for sale and the car was sold to Mr Fred Puhn, an American from San Diego, California. Fred Puhn, who worked part time in a grocery store, had seen a classified advertisement in the San Diego newspaper for several exotic Italian cars. He called immediately and talked to the seller, Mr Bill Brehaut, who was importing and selling used Italian cars from his home. It turned out that Bill Brehaut was one of the two men who started Road & Track magazine!
The car on offer, an Alfa Romeo 6C 2500 Super Sport Pinin Farina convertible, was too expensive ($2,000) for Fred Puhn. He then decided to ask Bill Brehaut to find a less expensive car and paid for it by cheque ($550) on 27th May 1958. Later in 1958, Bill Brehaut's business partner in Italy, Mr Michele Vernola from Milan, notified him of a car that was right for Fred Puhn. It was a 1948 Alfa Romeo 6C 2500 Super Sport Pinin Farina convertible just like the one he first rode in. The price was only $585 in Italy because the car had covered 100,000 kilometres and needed a repaint. The Alfa was not of the quality Messrs Brehaut and Vernola liked to deal in, but nevertheless they decided to import it as a special favour for Fred Puhn, who had spent all his savings purchasing the car. Other costs were shipping up to $330; duties up to $45; Bill Brehaut's fees up to $20; and Michele Vernola's fees up to $100.
When Fred Puhn received the shipping papers he went to the port of Long Beach to see the car for the first time: "It was beautiful, faded grey paint and threadbare top aside; it was the car of my youthful dreams". Of course, he had to come back on another day to get it through customs; the customs declaration was dated 20th November 1959.
With his friend, Jerry, Fred travelled again to Long Beach to collect the car. They put a little gas in it, and it fired up straight away. The exhaust was a little smoky, but otherwise it ran well: "I was on a cloud as we drove down Highway 101 back to San Diego. We stopped at San Juan Capistrano for lunch and a photo (see attached picture). It was the only photo I would have of car in its original state, for disaster loomed ahead.
"We were only a few minutes from home in San Diego and passed under a freeway. I marvelled at the echo of the exhaust in the tunnel and pushed on the throttle to amplify it. In the next instant, an old Ford coming the other way suddenly turned left in front of us. I crashed into the Ford with the brakes locked. The Ford driver took off trying to escape the consequences. Jerry leaped out my Alfa, flagged down a passing car and took after the escaping culprit. He caught him a few blocks away and brought him to the back scene. The cops then arrived and promptly gave me a ticket for no registration or plates (contrary to what the DMV told me over the phone). The guy who caused the accident had no insurance but promised in writing to pay for my repairs. He never did. The Alfa would drive if you did not turn the steering wheel much, so we limped home. I was more than demoralised. It was hard not to cry in front of my friends.
"The next few months were spent going into debt and watching a craftsman slowly repair the Alfa. Finally, it was done, so I painted it red. After that, there were good both times and had times with the car. I drove it to college and parked it next to my friend Jerry's newly acquired FIAT 8V. Going to school with the top down was a blast on a winding canyon road, and I raced every car I saw. The Alfa even made a trip to the Colton drag strip and won a trophy by beating a VW Beetle. I took out a girl on a date in the Alfa, but she complained at being stared at because the car had right-hand drive. I impressed my hot-rodder friend by taking him for a ride at night and showing him 150 (kph) on the speedometer. He thought it was miles per hour."
The Alfa's registration plate was in 1960 was 'PSX 679'. Fred Puhn took good care of his car and eventually overhauled the complex hand-built engine. On 14th December 1960 he bought various parts from Michele Vernola including new bearings and a timing chain, as well as some valves and valve springs He also had the cylinder block bored at Westerlund & Lange on 5th August 1961 in order to fit a set of new pistons. Other machining work done at Westerlund and Lange on 30th September 1961 including grinding the crankshaft and line-boring the main bearings.
But despite all those works the oil pressure was falling again, leading Fred Puhn to conclude: "I am sure it was a mistake I made putting the pressure relief valve back together." "In a fit of depression", he traded the car for an MG TF to Mr John M Schoenfeld, 3353 Albatross, San Diego, California, who kept it for eight years. Despite its lubrication problem, the Alfa obviously left a deep impression on Fred Puhn, who some 50 years later wrote an article about it for the July 2012 edition of the Alfa Romeo Owners Club's magazine in the USA!
On 28th June 1963, John Schoenfeld had the seats reupholstered in blue at Hillcrest Auto Top Shop for $81.80 (see invoice naming both Hillcrest Auto Top Shop and Hydro Products Co).
In 1963, he changed the clutch, the brakes and the master cylinder, and repaired some of the instruments. He also ordered new rod bearings from Michele Vernola. A service bill from Morena Blvd., San Diego, California dated 15th July 1963 showed a total of 76,214 kilometres recorded at that time. Hence, we can deduce that the car, which had 100,000 kilometres recorded in 1959, in fact had covered 176,214 kilometres by June 1963 as the odometer has only five digits.
In 1965 John M. Schoenfeld sold the Alfa Romeo to Mr Lew Skaug, Chula Vista, San Diego, California, who registered it on 10th May '65. On 22nd September 1965, he was looking for new connecting bearing rods and main bearings. In 1965, the car was registered 'LLB 313'. It seems that this was the only occasion Lew Skaug paid the annual license fee, so it is likely that the car was not driven much at this time.
In June 1970, Lew Skaug sold the car to Mr Robert Craft Archibald, 4216 Morrell, San Diego, California, CA, who registered it on 31st July of that year. Unfortunately there is no information available for his period of ownership. In 1980 Robert Archibald sold the Alfa Romeo for $800 to Mr Howard Staniforth, the father of the last owner who kept the car until 2013; he got the car running and drove it a short distance. Subsequently, the car was dismantled and Howard Staniforth commenced some cosmetic refurbishment in his small workshop (Staniforth Electric), although without finishing the work (see photographs taken prior to 2013).
On 16th October 2013, with the odometer showing 80,255 kilometres (almost certainly 180,255 in actuality), the car was sold by Howard Staniforth's son to broker Fantasy Junction of Emeryville, California (US title under the name of Fantasy Junction in file), who in turn sold it to another broker, Mr Francisco Ramos García of Classic Road, Madrid, Spain. The car arrived in Europe through the port of Alicante, Spain, on 17th July 2014 and was customs cleared.
Before selling the car to Fantasy Junction, Ray Staniforth wrote a short history of his car (see pictures in file and online catalogue).
By the end of 2015 the Alfa had been sold to Mr Andrea Sivieri from Ferrara, Italy, who made the decision to start a complete restoration in the autumn of 2016. However, he was unable to proceed because of the task's complexity and insufficient funds. A full restoration commenced in France in March 2019, and after more than 5,000 hours of work was finally completed in the spring of 2022 (important restoration file with 2400 photos). Some 99% of the original parts were retained during the restoration, including the Borrani wheels.
The car comes with a French carte grise de collection, a 1947 Alfa Romeo reproduction brochure La nuova 6C 2500 2a serie tipo Sport e Super Sport. In addition, some original manuals from 1948 and 1949: Alfa Romeo 6C 2500 Series II Owner's Manual for the Sport and & Super Sport, and Alfa Romeo 6C 2500 Series II & III Workshop/Spare Parts Manual for the Sport & Super Sport, are available if required.
This exceptional 6C 2500 Super Sport Cabriolet by Pinin Farina must be one of the most handsome of post-war Alfa Romeos and would be a worthy addition to any connoisseur's collection. It is more than a wonderful car: it is a masterpiece.
Camera: Olympus Pen-FV
Lens: Olympus G Zuiko Auto-S 1:1,4 f=40mm
Film: Kodak Portra 400 professional grade colour negative film
Developed and scanned by www.meinfilmlab.de
As I look into you eyes
I know the reasons why
My life's worth a thousand skies
You're the simplest love I've known
And the purest one I'll own
Know you'll never be alone
My baby you
Are the reason I could fly
And 'cause of you
I don't have to wonder why
Baby you
There's no more just getting by
You're the reason I feel so alive
Though these words I sing are true
They still fail to capture you
As mere words can only do
How do I explain that smile
And how it turns my world around
Keeping my feet on the ground
I will soothe you if you fall
I'll be right there if you call
You're my greatest love of all ~
Song by Marc Anthony~
Enjoy the song, and video if you have a moment by same~
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9PAxnks0tA
EXPLORE 2-23-09 Thanks Flickr friends~
Your brain is considerably more complex wiring than you may think. The main interconnection between your left and right brain hemispheres has 200 million connections. Thus, each wire pair in this cable would represent on the order of 1 million nerves.
"The corpus callosum is the main transverse tract of fibers that connects the two cerebral hemispheres. It is made of more than 200 million nerve fibers."
Source www.emotion.caltech.edu/agcc/info.html
011