Talk:Ring laser gyroscope

message: I just deleted: 
"External link:
* Optical Kerr-effect in fiber-optic Brillouin ring laser gyroscopes"
This article discusses some specialized detail of laser gyros. It is certainly of no interest for anybody who read this article in order to find out what a laser gyro is. Simon A. 07:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: old stuff

message: This article doesn't properly distinguish between the fiber gyro which IS a direcct application of the Sagnac effect (and works exactly the way described, but with multiple turns) and the much more sensitive LASER gyro which is incorrectly described. Anyway I'll change those parts. (soon)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.146.159 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: I believe that this page doesn't answer to some people's questions. 
They argue that to observe a frequency shift you must have a relative motion.
So the article should better point out how this device does not violate Einstein's special theory of relativity. 
Their questions can be found for example here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu4ZrzG-7ik  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.56.200.244 (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Common doubt

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ring laser gyroscope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205074409/http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/mk39/assets/mk39.pdf to http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/mk39/assets/mk39.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20090102252609400.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: When I frst read about this in an "Electronics Today" or "Electrnics Australia" magazine in the 1980s, this was called a "Laser Ring" gyro rather than a "Ring Laser".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:B4B3:B84C:B1D9:5248 (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: The peak dither rate was given as 1 arc second per second, and marked "dubious" with the following note in the text:
!--What is a typical lock-in rate? Much higher than that would possibly solve!!--
That is absolutely correct. I changed the value to a few degrees per second, based on the following:
The amplitude needs to be at least a few optical half-wavelengths of circumferential motion, i.e. a few arc seconds; at 400 Hz this implies a maximum rate of "a few" times 2 pi × 400 Hz ~ 5000 arc-seconds per second or 1.5 degrees per second.
And then I removed the "dubious" tag. I suppose one might say that that calculation represents "original" work, but it's pretty elementary.
I also added a paragraph about a non-dithered RLG, based on a book chapter on such instruments, which is the source of the material in the paragraph. OK, I fibbed; I wrote the paragraph with hardly any reference to the book, but the material is there in the chapter. I should know, I was one of the authors. Hmm. Does this make me guilty of self-citing? What should I do about it?
Finally, I removed the words "compared with RLG" near the end; the sensitivities of both depend on design and the FOG is generally worse than the RLG although the latter may have more long-term drift. IrlSmith (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing a dubious-tagged value 

message: :
So this happens only at a specific ω?  I'm skeptical.  Persuade me that this sentence would not be improved by excising "A certain rate of". —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  a phenomenon versus its measurement 

message: I find this article hard to read, as it's filled with terms that aren't defined in the article. I couldn't even understand the first sentence. Can someone who understands these terms make the article easier to read? RteeeeKed💬📖 05:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much jargon