[TXnMA]

"Quite often when measurements and theory do not match the issue is the quality, accuracy and methodology of the instrumentation and how they are used that are the issue. "

I agree. The accelerometers most likely were micromachined from silicon:

Such devices are very effective and sensitive accelerometers. The problem with them (and any other form of accelerometer with which I'm familiar is that they produce an electrical output.

And, the problem is that electrical devices is that they requre wiring to connect them with the data-acquistion system.

...and conductors (aka "wiring") in the presence of moving magnetic fields -- generate electrical current.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you say, "spuriously-generated [false] accelerometer signals"?

[TXnMA]

Ooops! Meant to include you in my #75 addressee list...

[Kevmo]

Can you say, “spuriously-generated [false] accelerometer signals”?
***I’ve never seen any instrument generate 20 orders of magnitude (OOM) of error. Maybe 1 OOM, that’s about it. And these guys did the experiment 250 times. That’s a lot of times repeating the same 20 OOM error.

Why is it that scientists have so much trouble looking into something so blatantly erroneous but so little trouble acting like a-h’s? It is a mystery without end.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thank you so much for your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[TXnMA]

I know of no accelerometer of any form, with a 10²⁰ or greater dynamic measurement range. Hence, I expect that the measurement was of some other [spurious] variable (probably electrical signal in nature) -- rather than acceleration due to a gravity-like field.

The experimenters claimed they measured an effect of 10^-8 G, which was 10²⁰ X larger than what they expected to measure. That means their accelerometers were expected to be capable of measuring an acceleration of 10^{-28 G}.

~~~~~~~~~
It would seem that the way to get "surprisingly larger than expected" results is ...to start with absurdly small expectations!
~~~~~~~~~