deletions | additions       diff --git a/subsection_Comparison_of_Detectors_textbf__.tex b/subsection_Comparison_of_Detectors_textbf__.tex  index 68772fb..57a6dc6 100644  --- a/subsection_Comparison_of_Detectors_textbf__.tex  +++ b/subsection_Comparison_of_Detectors_textbf__.tex 
...
\textbf{\textit{THIS SECTION NEEDS MORE CITATION AND EXPANSION}}  \subsubsection{Laser Interferometer}  Although a large variety of techniques and instruments exist for laser interferometry, the size of existing gravitational wave detectors that are able to respond to HFGW in the range required are at least 4km in size () and 1,333 times larger than our tabletop guideline. Laser interferometry can be immediately eliminated.  \subsubsection{Neutron Interferometer}  Neutron interferometry is particularly interesting because particles act as a wave and are subject to a range of sensitivity from gravitational potential. However, this range of sensitivity is also a source of noise (Pushin et al., 2015). A successfully isolated neutron interferometer requires thermal and acoustic isolation, secondary vibration isolation, and environmental enclosures (Wietfeldt, 2009). The amount of enclosure required to isolate an experiment come very close to established guidelines for experimental isolation. An issue remains with isolating noise in neutron interferometry. If the source of gravitational waves is time varying, a lock-in amplifier technique may not work to isolate actual gravitational waves from an EM source. For this reason, we eliminate a neutron interferometer as a viable instrument.  \subsubsection{Traditional Resonant-Mass Detectors}  Traditional resonant-mass detectors involve cooling of resonant bars to very low temperatures around 1.5K (). Resonant-mass detectors such as EXPLORER and NAUTILUS were operated until 2010, and despite their increased lifetime and joint-collaboration in analyzing datasets, the teams operating these detectors did not directly claim to measure gravitational waves (). Given that a directly identifiable measurement is preferable, we eliminate traditional resonant-mass detectors as an option for tabletop experimentation.  \subsubsection{Next Generation Detectors}  Non-traditional resonant-mass detectors may be more viable. A high frequency phonon trapping acoustic cavity proposed by Goryachev and Tobar is only 2.5cm in size - well within our tabletop guidelines - and has the added benefit of operating in a vacuum chamber. This design may easily isolate it from sources of noise and with additional shielding, also prevent EM interference with the device itself when using an EM source for HFGW. When accounting for all sources of noise, the apparatus is estimated to be capable of detecting HFGW at magnitudes up to $10^{-22} \sqrt{Hz}$ (Goryachev et al., 2014). A potential drawback is the apparatus requires a very low operating temperature of 0.01K, and it is unclear whether supporting equipment will fit in tabletop guidelines. Despite the potential drawbacks, the Goryachev & Tobar device appears to be most feasible instrument for tabletop experimentation.