View allAll Photos Tagged detector
CP ES44AC 8704 + KCS SD70ACe 4151 and mid train dp UP ES44AC 5492 hustle Montreal to Vancouver hotshot intermodal 113 west, three miles out of Marathon at Carden Cove passing over the hotbox detector at mile 65.9 Heron Bay Subdivision. 111424
Rice weevil (Sitophilus oryzae): antennae and rostrum.
Courtesy of Dr. Riccardo Antonelli , Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Pisa University
Image Details
Instrument used: Quanta SEM
Magnification: 350 x
Horizontal Field Width: 852 μm
Vacuum: High Vacuum
Voltage: 7.50 kV
Spot: 4.5
Working Distance: 6.6 mm
Detector: ETD
yesterday on my roof - what a wonderful, sunny day it was!
Have a great SUNday!
Gestern war hier noch einmal ein wunderbarer, sonniger Tag.
Heute ist es mehr grau in grau - aber ich wünsche Euch dennoch einen schönen Rest-Sonntag!
5/2019 - George's Station, PA
After hearing the high car detector go off for this westbound, I barely managed to fire off a couple shots. Turned out to be the best shots of the day.
Standing face-to-face with the detector felt surreal. It’s this incredible portal capturing traces of particles from collisions that mimic the birth of the universe. At 100 metres below Geneva, surrounded by wires and glowing lights, I couldn’t help but feel like I’d stepped into the heart of a science fiction story come to life.
Five units lead a westbound UP coal empty across the grade crossing at Blue Mountain and by the hotbox detector at MP 22.6. The train is heading for the West Elk Mine on the North Fork Branch in Western Colorado. As a railfan, it is good to see a minor uptick in coal traffic on the Moffat.
©2023 ColoradoRailfan.com
6841 Mineral Detector (1980). Probably sent in advance of the Shovel Buggy, and again with the inexplicable RCS thrusters. Maybe due to the low-G environment? Seems like it would risk damage to the detectors though.
Part of a series of Classic Space builds to do with geological exploration, subsurface geological mapping, and mineral detection, which I guess were some of the main purposes of the Classic Space line. Since I studied Geology at university I love this aspect! So there are more to come.
This build was actually completed almost two years ago, so I'm glad to share it here.
Union Pacific track inspection vehicle EC-4, built by Plasser and Theurer of Linz, Austria, pulls into Salt Lake City, Utah on November 9, 2018.
Gunnery Sgt. Jhimelle Sepulveda, training chief with a fire fighting unit on Camp Pendleton, California, emerges from a fire training facility during an exercise conducted by the Camp Pendleton Fire Department and the Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton’s Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting unit on a controlled burn training facility. The training was designed to teach firefighters how to prevent rapid combustion of burned materials in rooms and structures.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Christopher Duncan/Released)
Extra 9147 West approaches the high-wide detector at Hilt on the Siskiyou Sub. Dave Stanley photo ©2018
The Postcard
A postally unused postcard that was printed in Switzerland by Engadin Press on behalf of Swissair.
On the divided back of the card is printed:
'Swissair Boeing 747-357.
Wing Span 59.6 m
Length 70.6 m
Height 19.3 m
Max. Cruising Speed 976 km/h
Passenger Seats 375 (Passenger Version)
252 (Combi Version)'.
The aircraft in the photograph (Registration Number H8-IGD) entered service with Swissair on the 19th. March 1983, and stopped being used by them on the 30th. June 1999. The aircraft was originally delivered to Swissair as a Combi Passenger/Freight Version.
After Service with Swissair it went to Northwest Airlines. A conversion to full freighter is planned, although the aircraft is currently (2019) sitting in storage in the Mojave Desert.
The Boeing 747 and its Safety Record
As of 2025, the Boeing 747 was first flown commercially 55 years previously in 1970.
As of August 2020, 62 Boeing 747 aircraft, or just under 4% of the total number of 747's ever built, have been involved in serious accidents and incidents resulting in a hull loss.
Hull loss means that the aircraft has either been destroyed, or has been damaged beyond economic repair.
Of the 62 Boeing 747 aircraft losses, 29 resulted in loss of life. In three separate hijackings, a total of 23 passengers were executed, and in a fourth hijacking, a terrorist was killed.
Some of the aircraft that were declared damaged beyond economic repair were older 747's that had sustained relatively minor damage. Had these planes been newer, it might have been financially viable to repair them, although with the 747's increasing obsolescence, this is becoming less common.
747's have been involved in accidents resulting in:
(a) The highest death toll of any aviation accident.
(b) The highest death toll of any single aeroplane
accident.
(c) The highest death toll resulting from a mid-air collision.
However, as with most aircraft accidents, the causes of these incidents involved multiple factors which rarely could be attributed to flaws in the 747's design, manufacture, or its flying characteristics.
Specific 747 Incidents
Specific 747 events are as follows:
-- 1970's
(1) On the 6th. September 1970, a new Pan American World Airways aircraft flying from Amsterdam to New York was hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
It was flown first to Beirut, then on to Cairo. Shortly after the occupants were evacuated from the aircraft after arriving at Cairo, it was blown up. Pan Am Flight 93 became the first hull loss of a Boeing 747.
(2) Japan Airlines Flight 404, the second 747 hull loss, was very similar to the first. The aircraft was hijacked on a flight from Amsterdam to Anchorage, Alaska, on the 20th. July 1973, again by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine working together with the Japanese Red Army.
The aircraft flew to Dubai, then Damascus, before ending its journey at Benghazi. The occupants were released, and the aircraft was blown up. One of the hijackers died.
(3) Lufthansa Flight 540 was the first fatal crash of a 747. On the 20th. November 1974, it stalled and smashed into the ground moments after taking off from Nairobi, with 59 deaths and 98 survivors. The cause was an error by the flight engineer, in combination with the lack of an adequate warning system.
(4) Air France Flight 193, a Boeing 747 operating the sector between Mumbai and Tel Aviv to Paris CDG, was destroyed by fire on the 12th. June 1975 at Mumbai's Santa Cruz Airport, following an aborted take-off.
(5) Imperial Iranian Air Force flight ULF48, a 747 freighter, crashed near Madrid on the 9th. May 1976, due to the structural failure of its left wing in flight, killing the 17 people on board.
The accident investigation determined that a lightning strike caused an explosion in a fuel tank in the wing, leading to flutter and separation of the wing.
(6) This is The Big One. On the 27th. March 1977, the highest death toll of any aviation accident in history occurred when KLM Flight 4805 collided on the runway with Pan Am 1736 in heavy fog at Tenerife Airport, resulting in 583 fatalities.
There were 61 survivors, all from the Pan Am 747. The Pan Am aircraft was coincidentally the first 747 to have entered commercial service.
Joani Feathers was one of the 61 who survived. She recalled how she saw a fellow passenger sliced in half by her seatbelt, and another woman set alight.
After the smash, her then-boyfriend Jack Ridout tried to help a stewardess trying to deploy an escape raft – only for an explosion to decapitate the Pan Am worker.
Recalling the near-death experience to the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Feathers told of how she was nervous about the presence of the KLM 747 that crashed into her plane moments before it happened. After voicing her fears to Ridout, he jokingly replied:
"Don’t worry. If he hits us,
you won’t feel a thing."
She felt the plane she was on veer sharply to the left as it tried to avoid the other airliner, then looked up to see the roof of the 747 sliced open like a tin can. Feathers, who had been flying from Los Angeles to the Canaries to begin a Mediterranean cruise, added:
"All my rings had come off
my fingers. My shoes came
off. I just didn’t want to burn
up.’
The ex-cop credits her law enforcement training for making her one of the few survivors, as she knew not to wait to help, and to keep a constant check on her surroundings.
She and Ridout freed themselves from their seats, before jumping two storeys from a door of the wrecked jet. The couple then sprinted away from the plane, shortly before it exploded in a huge fireball.
Feathers, who now lives in Daytona Beach, said she kept repeating "No. No. I can’t believe this is happening" as she ran from the plane. She added:
"The plane went up
like an atom bomb."
Afterwards, Feathers and Ridout were flown back to California where they lived, but split up soon afterwards.
(7) On the 3rd. November 1977, one passenger died after a decompression event on an El Al 747 over Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
(8) Air India Flight 855 crashed into the sea off the coast of Mumbai on the 1st. January 1978. All 213 passengers and crew died.
The cause was lack of situation awareness on the captain's part after executing a banked turn due to the failure of an attitude detector. The false reading led to pilot confusion and spatial disorientation.
-- 1980's
(9) Korean Air Lines 747-200 Flight 015, operating a flight from Los Angeles to Seoul was damaged beyond repair on the 19th. November 1980. The aircraft undershot its landing, and impacted just short of the runway.
The landing gear collapsed, and the aircraft caught fire after it slid to a stop. Of the 226 occupants, 8 passengers and 6 crew members died, along with one person on the ground.
(10) On the 11th. August 1982, Pan Am 747-100, Flight 830, was en route from Tokyo to Honolulu with 285 aboard when a bomb exploded under a seat, killing 16-year-old Toru Ozawa, and injuring 16 others. The damaged airliner was able to land safely in Honolulu.
Mohammed Rashed, linked to the 15th. May Organisation, was convicted of murder in 1988.
(11) On the 16th. August 1982, China Airlines 747 encountered severe turbulence near Hong Kong; two of the 292 passengers were killed.
(12) On the 4th. August 1983, Pan Am Flight 73, a 747-100, struck a VASI light installation and its concrete base while taking off at Karachi International Airport, causing the nose gear to collapse backwards to the left.
This resulted in the total destruction of the VASI light installation, and damage to the forward cargo hold, the floor of the first class section, and the stairway leading to the upper deck.
(13) On the 1st. September 1983, Korean Air Lines Flight 007, a 747-200B from New York City to Seoul, strayed into Soviet air space as a result of a navigation error.
The aircraft was shot down just west of Sakhalin Island by the Soviet Air Force, killing all 269 passengers and crew on board.
(14) On the 27th. November 1983, Avianca Flight 011, a 747-200 flying from Paris to Bogotá via Madrid, crashed into a mountainside due to a navigational error while manoeuvring to land at Madrid Barajas International Airport, killing 181 out of the 192 on board.
(15) On the 19th. February 1985, China Airlines 747SP was flying from Taipei to LA. About 350 miles from San Francisco, incorrect crew responses to an engine failure led to an uncontrolled descent.
The aircraft lost 30,000 feet, and high air speeds and g-forces led to damage to the horizontal stabilisers, wings and landing gear doors. The crew diverted to San Francisco, and all 22 crew members and 374 passengers survived.
(16) On the 16th. March 1985, a UTA Boeing 747-300 was destroyed on the ground at Paris CDG when a fire was accidentally started while the aircraft's cabin was being cleaned. (.... How can you start a major fire when cleaning a plane???)
(17) On the 23rd. June 1985, a bomb exploded on Air India Flight 182, a 747-200B en route from Montreal to New Delhi, causing the aircraft to explode and crash off the Southwest coast of Ireland, killing all 329 on board.
Until the September 11 attacks of 2001, the Air India bombing was the deadliest terrorist attack involving aircraft. It remains the worst mass murder in Canadian history.
(18) On the 12th. August 1985, Japan Airlines Flight 123 crashed when the rear pressure bulkhead of a 747 flying from Tokyo to Osaka failed at cruising altitude, destroying most of the aircraft's vertical stabiliser.
The pilots kept it in the air for 32 minutes - time for passengers to write notes to their loved ones - but the aircraft eventually crashed on Mount Takamagahara. Out of the 524 people on board, only four survived, making it the deadliest-ever single-aircraft accident.
Among those who had caught the flight was one of Japan 's most popular singers, Kyu Sajamoto. He had become known to Western audiences in the 1960's with his hit record Sukiyaki.
(19) On the 5th. December 1985, Air France Flight 91 overshot the runway during a landing at Rio de Janeiro-Galeão International Airport, Brazil. There were no fatalities, but the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.
(20) On the 5th. September 1986, Pan Am Flight 747-100 Flight 73 was about to depart Karachi for a flight to Frankfurt when four hijackers boarded the aircraft and attempted to take control of it.
However, the flight crew left the aircraft via the cockpit escape hatch (I'm all right, Jack). The hijackers killed 20 of the passengers before the hijacking ended.
(21) On the 28th. November 1987, South African Airways Flight 295, a 747-200 Combi en route from Taipei to Johannesburg, crashed into the ocean off Mauritius.
A fire had broken out in the rear cargo hold, leading to separation of the tail and damage to vital control systems. All 160 people on board died.
(22) On the 5th. April 1988, Kuwait Airways 747-200 Combi Flight 422 was hijacked during a flight from Bangkok to Kuwait. The aircraft was first diverted to Iran and later to Cyprus.
During the 16-day event, two hostages were killed in Cyprus before the hijackers surrendered at their final stop in Algeria.
(23) On the 21st. December 1988, Pan Am Flight 103, a 747-100, disintegrated in mid-air after a bomb in the luggage hold exploded; the wings, with their tanks full of fuel, landed on Lockerbie, Scotland.
All 259 people on board and 11 people in Lockerbie died. A Libyan national was eventually convicted at a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands of murder in connection with the bombing.
(24) On the 19th. February 1989, Flying Tiger Line Flight 66, a 747-100F, was flying using a non-directional beacon (NDB) approach to Runway 33 at Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport, Kuala Lumpur, when the cargo aircraft hit a hillside 600 ft (180 m) above sea level.
The crash resulted in the deaths of all four people on board. The crew had descended below the glide path after receiving ambiguous instructions from air traffic control.
(25) On the 24th. February 1989, United Air Lines 747-100, Flight 811 was flying from Honolulu to Auckland when it experienced sudden decompression.
The crew was able to return to Honolulu and land 14 minutes after the decompression. All 18 crew members survived, but 9 of the 337 passengers were killed. (...What did the 18 crew members do to ensure that they all survived???)
-- 1990's
(26) British Airways Flight 149 was a 747-100 flying from London Heathrow to Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport, Kuala Lumpur with stopovers in Kuwait International Airport and Madras International Airport (now Chennai).
The aircraft landed in Kuwait City on the 1st. August 1990, four hours after the Gulf War had broken out. (Bad Move!!!)
All 385 passengers and crew were taken hostage by Iraqi forces; one was executed but the others were released. The aircraft was subsequently blown up. (....Why didn't someone radio the captain during the initial four hours of the war and mention that they were about to land in a war zone???? Who knows ....)
(27) On the 29th. December 1991, China Airlines Flight 358, a 747-200, crashed shortly after take-off from Chiang Kai-Shek International Airport in Taipei, Taiwan, killing all 5 crew members.
The crash occurred when the number-three and number-four engines (both on the right wing) detached from the aircraft. (... One engine falling off could perhaps have a valid explanation, but both????)
(28) On the 20th. February 1992, a passenger on Aerolineas Argentinas 747 en route to LA from Argentina died from food poisoning.
(29) On the 4th. October 1992, an El Al 747-200 cargo flight crashed shortly after take-off from Amsterdam Schiphol Airport after the right-side engines both fell off due to metal fatigue and damaged the right wing.
The aircraft crashed into an apartment building, killing all three crew members and the single passenger on board, as well as 43 people in the building and on the ground.
(30) On the 4th. November 1993, China Airlines Flight 605, a brand-new 747-400 flying from Taipei to Hong Kong Kai Tak Airport, landed 2000 feet past the threshold of runway 13, with insufficient braking power.
Unable to stop before the end of the runway, the captain steered the aircraft into Victoria Harbour. All passengers were evacuated via inflatable life rafts.
The vertical fin was blown off with explosives, as it disrupted airport operations. The aircraft was recovered from the harbour days later, and was written off.
(31) On the 11th. December 1994, a small liquid-explosive bomb detonated under a seat of a Philippine Airlines 747-200 flying from Cebu to Tokyo. The bomb, which exploded over the Pacific, killed one of the 287 passengers and injured 10 others.
The aircraft itself was seriously damaged by the blast, and although vital control systems were damaged, the pilots were able to safely land the airliner at Okinawa an hour later.
The bomb was assembled and planted for al-Qaeda by Ramzi Yousef, as a test for the planned bombings of the Bojinka plot. This was a January 1995 al-Qaeda plot to destroy several airliners over the Pacific Ocean using liquid explosives. The conspirators were discovered before they could carry out the terrorist attacks.
(32) On the 17th. July 1996, TWA Flight 800, a 747-100 bound for CDG Airport in Paris, exploded during its climb from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, killing all 230 people aboard.
A spark from a wire in the centre fuel tank caused the explosion near Long Island. Changes in fuel tank management were adopted after the crash.
For more information on the TWA 800 crash and the virtuoso guitarist who was one of the passengers, please search for the tag 74GND75
(33) On the 5th. September 1996, Air France 747-400 experienced severe turbulence near Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
The turbulence injured 3 of the 206 passengers. One of the 3 later died of injuries caused by an in-flight entertainment screen. (.... How can an in-flight entertainment system kill you??? Perhaps it was terminal boredom. Alternative explanations on a postcard please).
(34) On the 12th. November 1996, Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 763, a 747-100B, collided with Kazakhstan Airlines Flight 1907, an Ilyushin Il-76, in mid-air over Charkri Dadri in Haryana, India.
The collision resulted in the deaths of all 349 occupants of both aircraft, more than any other mid-air collision in history. The Ilyushin had apparently descended below its assigned altitude.
(35) On the 6th. August 1997, Korean Air Flight 801, a Boeing 747-300, crashed into a hillside while on a night-time approach in heavy rain to Antonio B. Won Pat International Airport on the island of Guam.
The crash resulted from a controlled flight into terrain due to insufficient training and pilot fatigue. Of the 254 people on board, only 26 survived.
(36) On the 28th. December 1997, United Air Lines 747-100, Flight 826 encountered severe turbulence when flying from Tokyo to Honolulu. All 19 crew members survived, but one of the 374 passengers was killed.
(37) On the 4th. January 1998, Olympic Airways 747 was scheduled to fly from Athens to New York. Prior to the flight, an asthmatic passenger with a history of sensitivity to second-hand smoke asked for a seat in the non-smoking area of the aircraft.
However, once on board, it was clear that the assigned seat was only 3 rows ahead of the smoking section, with no partition.
Three requests were made to the cabin crew to switch seats, but the cabin crew would not move the passenger to one of the eleven available unoccupied seats. Several hours into the flight, the passenger suffered a reaction to the ambient smoke and died.
(.... Why didn't the flight crew just let the passenger move seats??? Who knows ...)
(38) On the 5th. August 1998, Korean Air Flight 8702, a Boeing 747-400, overshot a runway at Incheon International Airport while landing. The fuselage split and 25 people were injured.
(39) On the 5th. March 1999, Air France flight 6745, a 747-2B3F carrying 66 tons of cargo from Paris CDG to Madras International Airport via Karachi and Bangalore HAL Airport, was destroyed by fire after landing with gear up. There were no fatalities.
(40) On the 23rd. September 1999 Qantas Flight 1, a passenger flight between Sydney and London was involved in a runway overrun at Don Mueang International Airport in Bangkok as it was landing for a stopover.
Visibility was very poor due to heavy rain, and the previous aircraft had executed a go-round, although the Quantas crew were not made aware of this.
Flight 1 landed over 3,000 feet beyond the runway threshold, and the undercarriage wheels aquaplaned on the wet ungrooved runway.
The Pilot and First Officer took conflicting corrective action, leading to the aircraft running off the end of the runway over a long stretch of boggy grassland, colliding with a ground radio antenna as it did so, and coming to rest with its nose resting on the perimeter road.
38 passengers sustained minor injuries, but there were no fatalities. The extensive damage to the aircraft was such that it was initially declared a write-off, but to preserve the company's reputation, Qantas had it repaired at a cost of $100 million. By returning the aircraft to service, Qantas was able to retain its record of having had no hull-loss accidents since the advent of the Jet Age.
(41) On the 22nd. December 1999, Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509, a 747-200F from London Stansted Airport, crashed shortly after take-off, killing all four crew. The captain of the aircraft had mishandled it due to erroneous indications on his attitude indicator.
-- 2000's
(42) On the 31st. October 2000, Singapore Airlines Flight 006, a 747-400 flying from Singapore to LA via Taipei, collided with construction equipment while attempting to take off in heavy rain from a closed runway at Taiwan's Chiang Kai-Shek International Airport.
The aircraft caught fire, killing 79 passengers and four crew members on board. There were 96 survivors.
(43) On the 31st. January 2001, Japan Airlines Flight 907, a Boeing 747-400 en route to Naha Airport, Okinawa, narrowly avoided a mid-air collision with Japan Airlines Flight 958, a McDonnell Douglas DC-10.
The incident was attributed to errors made by air traffic controller trainee Hideki Hachitani and trainee supervisor Yasuko Momii. Had the collision occurred, given the combined total of 677 people on board both aircraft, this could have potentially been the deadliest aviation accident ever, surpassing the 1977 Tenerife airport disaster.
Once they had seen each other, the two aircraft avoided collision by using extreme evasive manoeuvres, and passed within about 135 metres (443 ft) of each other.
Seven passengers and two crew members in the 747 sustained serious injuries; one 54-year old woman broke her leg. Additionally, 81 passengers and 10 crew members reported minor injuries.
Some unbelted passengers, flight attendants, and drink carts hit the ceiling, dislodging ceiling tiles. The manoeuvre threw one boy across four rows of seats. In addition, a drink cart spilled, scalding some passengers.
After a criminal investigation, on the 11th. April 2008, the two air traffic controllers were found guilty of giving incorrect instructions, and received suspended prison sentences.
(44) On the 23rd. August 2001, Saudia Flight 3830, 747-368, rolled into a drainage ditch at Kuala Lumpur Airport and toppled forward, causing severe damage to the nose section. The aircraft was being taxied by a ground engineer.
When trying to make a turn, the brakes and steering had no effect, and the aircraft continued into the ditch. It emerged that the auxiliary hydraulic pumps, which actuated the brakes and steering, were switched off.
(45) On the 21st. November 2001, MK Airlines 747-200F was on an international cargo flight from Luxembourg to Port Harcourt, Nigeria when it crashed about 700 metres short of the runway. Of the 13 individuals on board, 1 died.
(46) On the 25th. May 2002, China Airlines Flight 611, a 747-200B en route to Hong Kong International Airport from Chiang Kai-Shek International Airport, broke up in mid-air 20 minutes after take off, and crashed into the Taiwan Strait, killing all 225 people on board.
Subsequent investigation determined the cause to be metal fatigue cracking due to an improperly-performed repair after a tail strike.
The aircraft was about to be sold to another carrier the following month. According to Boeing, it had been delivered to China Airlines in July 1979, and had accumulated approximately 21,180 landings and 64,394 flight hours. (.... That's a total of over 7 years in the air!!!)
This 22-year old aircraft was nevertheless younger than similar models in the fleets of US airlines. According to the FAA, the average age of Boeing 747-200 and 300 models in US fleets at the time of the event was 24 years.
(47) On the 14th. October 2004, MK Airlines Flight 1602, a 747-200F, crashed while attempting to take off from Halifax Stanfield International Airport, killing all seven on board.
The aircraft's take-off weight had been incorrectly calculated, and it was only airborne briefly before stalling at the end of the runway.
(48) On the 8th. September 2005, while Saudi Arabian Airlines 747-300 was taxiing for takeoff on a flight from Colombo to Jeddah, air traffic controllers had an anonymous call concerning a possible bomb on the aircraft. The crew performed an emergency evacuation.
This resulted in 62 injuries amongst the 430 passengers and crew members. One passenger died as a result of his injuries, and 19 were hospitalised. A subsequent search revealed that there was no bomb on board.
(49) On the 7th. June 2006, Tradewinds International Airlines Flight 444, a 747-200F, aborted a take-off from Rionegro/Medellín-José María Córdova Airport and overran the runway. The aircraft was damaged beyond economic repair, and was withdrawn from service.
(50) On the 25th. May 2008, a Kalitta Air 747-200F broke up when it overran Runway 20 at Brussels Airport, Belgium, while en route to Bahrain International Airport, with no injuries.
(51) 44 days later, on the 7th. July 2008, another Kalitta Air 747-200F crashed into a farm field near the village of Madrid, Colombia shortly after take-off from El Dorado International Airport.
This time, the crew had reported an engine fire, and were attempting to return to the airport. One of the aircraft's engines hit a farmhouse and killed three people inside it.
-- 2010's
(52) On the 3rd. September 2010, UPS Airlines Flight 6, a 747-400F, crashed near Dubai International Airport, killing two crew members. The crash was blamed on a major fire that had been triggered by the auto-ignition of 81,000 lithium-ion batteries in a cargo pallet in the hold.
(53) On the 28th. July 2011, Asiana Airlines Flight 991, a 747-400F, caught fire and crashed in the sea near Jeju island, killing both crew members.
(54) On the 29th. April 2013, National Airlines Flight 102, a 747-400BCF, stalled and crashed shortly after taking off from Bagram Airfield, killing all 7 crew members.
At one point, the aircraft had rolled to the right past 45 degrees. Although the crew managed to get the wings more or less level, by then the aircraft was too low, and it impacted the ground at high vertical speed, causing an explosion and fire.
(55) On the 22nd. December 2013, the right wing on British Airways Flight 34, a Boeing 747–436, struck a building at O. R. Tambo International Airport in Johannesburg after missing a turning on a taxiway.
The wing was severely damaged, but there were no injuries amongst the crew or 189 passengers, although four on the ground were injured. The aircraft was officially written off in February 2014.
(56) On the 19th. March 2015, a 747-SP used by the president of Yemen was damaged by gunfire from troops loyal to deposed president Ali Abdullah Saleh. Photos released a few months later showed the remains of the aircraft after it had been set on fire.
(57) On the 16th. January 2017, Turkish Airlines Flight 6491, a 747-400F operated by ACT Airlines en route from Hong Kong to Istanbul via Bishkek, overshot the runway on landing in thick freezing fog at Manas International Airport in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
The aircraft caught fire, and 39 people died, including all four crew members, as well as 35 residents of a village at the crash site.
(58) On the 7th. November 2018, SkyLease Cargo Flight 4854, a 747-400F, overran the runway while landing at Halifax Stanfield International Airport. Although the aircraft sustained substantial damage, all four crew members survived with minor injuries.
-- 2020's
(59) On the 27th. August 2020, a Boeing 747-SP belonging to Las Vegas Sands Corporation was damaged beyond economic repair by Hurricane Laura while being stored at Chennault International Airport in Louisiana.
The tip of the right wing struck a steel beam, causing the tip to separate. The nose section of the aircraft was also damaged by the wing of another aircraft stored at the airport.
(60) On the 20th. February 2021, Longtail Aviation Flight 5504 littered the Dutch town of Meerssen with metal parts that fell from the sky onto property and people, shortly after departing Maastricht Airport for New York.
According to witness reports, there was a fire visible in one of the Boeing 747-400 cargo plane’s engines. The plane was able to land safely at Liège airport in Belgium, about 30 kilometres (19 miles) south of where it took off.
Soon after the incident Maastricht Airport spokesperson Hella Hendriks stated that several cars and houses had been damaged, and that pieces were found across the residential neighbourhood on roofs, gardens and streets.
Ms Hendriks confirmed that dozens of pieces fell. The metal parts apparently measured 5cm wide and 25cm long. She noted:
"The initial photos indicate they were parts
of engine blades, but that’s being investigated.”
Two people were injured by the debris, including an elderly woman who had to be taken to hospital.
The plane was powered by Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines, a smaller version of those on the United Airlines Boeing 777 that caught fire and dropped engine parts over Denver on the same day.
(61) On the 8th. September 2022, part of a Boeing 747’s engine plunged through a couple's garage roof. Louis and Adela Demaret, from Waremme in the Liège region of Belgium, heard a low-flying aircraft, followed by a deafening noise.
The flight was being operated by Air Atlanta Icelandic, and was travelling to Malta-Luqa airport when it lost the aft cowl of one of the engines.
Their garage window was also damaged, and another section of the plane’s engine landed next to the couple’s driveway. Fortunately no one was injured.
Summary
The 61 incidents listed above resulted in a total of 3,930 fatalities.
3,930 people standing in a line with a one metre gap between each would form a queue over 5.23 km (3.25 miles) long.
CSX W/B M-217 ran light engines from Philadelphia, PA to Jessup, MD on Sunday, 8-21-22. Here, CM44AC-7263 & ES44AH-3223 are passing under the eastbound signal bridge at MP BAA-6.8 on track one of the Capital Sub. The Zink Dragging Equipment Detectors are just ahead. 7263 was built as CW44AC-366 in November of 1998.
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.
When the authorities at Classic Space asked Llwyngwril Systems to design a mineral detector, driven by four turbines, they were a bit surprised by the result. With Llwyngwril Systems' history in this field of design, the Spacemen really shouldn't have been surprised at all.
Further Febrovery Fun. I think I'll take the weekend off: I've run out of ideas (well, silly Lego ones at least).
I had very little time to set up a shot with 581 at Richwood already (1 mile away ). I try to keep the detector out of the shot most times, but when I saw the warm glow coming off it, I thought why not put in. I knew there was going to be a BNSF leader, but the bonnet was a welcome surprise. P.S. Dan's shot at Frank Rd. beats this one like a drum.
I went through the record store anti theft detectors and took this picture and it left some strange lines on the file. mmm? all sizes on.
Windfarm support/supply vessel returning to Gt.Yarmouth after delivering stores to ISLAND CROWN anchored offshore.
I.M.O. - 9778765
Call sign - OWBO2
Gross tons - 216t
Length/beam - 26.2m x 9.2m
Built 2016 by Grovfjord Mek Verstead A/S Norway.
Owner - Northern Offshore,Kastrup Denmark
Manager - Northern Offshore Lowestoft U.K.