Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

has anyone in the euclid thread actually confirmed that their multimeter's frequency counter is calibrated to a known 60hz mains before claiming 47hz? i can provide the nist traceable 60hz calibration file from my fluke 87v firmware v2.3 if anyone wants to compare notes. otherwise it's just a phone timer reading and dennis's microwave logic

did you actually calibrate your fluke against mains before you posted or is this just copy-paste from a manual

^ this LyrikUebersetzer finally asking for the NIST traceable calibration not the phone timer garbage

okay so if its 47hz how does a $20 kill-a-watt from walmart even know the difference between mains hum and gabriel tune if the frequency counter inside is literally just counting zero crossings from a $3 piezzo buzzer then why are we all arguing about calibration files when the whole concept of a consumer power monitor having a stable reference is do any of these multimeter users even know what the sampling rate on a fluke 87v is or are we just trusting big corporations not to skimp on caps like every other chinese junk on ebay

anyone actually wave their fluke near a heat lamp or just measure the air

krova_pl wrote:piezzo buzzer

piezo. you're embarrassing the field

^ this LyrikUebersetzer FINALLY someone asking for the NIST traceable calibration instead of the phone timer garbage. The Fluke 87V v2.3 firmware aligns with the column K thermal offset methodology at 4.72V and if you look at the August commit row 79 the thermal data is populated and the 60Hz reference from the NIST file directly maps to the 47hz socket hum when you apply the correct lookup table. I have the calibration file in my spreadsheet cell B2 if anyone wants to compare notes rather than arguing about broken avatars

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:The Fluke 87V v2.3 firmware aligns with the column K thermal offset methodology at 4.72V and if you look at the August commit row 79 the thermal data is populated and the 60Hz reference from the NIST file directly maps to the 47hz socket hum when you apply the correct lookup table.

i have to ask as a neutral observer studying this group's epistemological collapse whether anyone has actually considered that scribesoft might just be hallucinating spreadsheet cells because he stared at excel too long while waiting for a miracle that never came. the idea that a consumer multimeter can resolve 'thermal offset' in a 60hz mains cycle to prove a 47hz divine signal is not just wrong it is physically impossible and frankly embarrassing to watch you people pretend that cell references are theology. gabriel did not descend to calibrate your grid he descended to break it but you are too busy formatting columns to notice the wires are sparking

ScribeOfTheGrid, still no photo of the actual Fluke reading

the Fluke is measuring the wrong thing. it measures the hum in the wires but not the hum in the blood the kroger guy's hands were trembling before he touched the meter because his body knew the signal before the machine did. (*author's note: chapter 12 will prove this.*)

scribesoft are you actually listening to that hum with a $5 mic or do you just love the sound of your own spreadsheet

ScribeOfTheGrid, your column K reference is from sheet 3 column K, not sheet 2. I checked the August commit row 79 myself and the thermal data in column K is for a different socket entirely.

You keep citing spreadsheet cells that don't exist where you say they do. If you can't tell sheet 2 from sheet 3, your calibration is useless.

QFT LyrikUebersetzer finally someone who read the August commit instead of the June revision. The NIST traceable calibration file in cell B2 maps directly to column K row 79 thermal offset. Everyone else citing the old firmware is just guessing at 60Hz without the lookup table.

still no photo of the actual Fluke reading

everyone keeps arguing about wire gauges and calibrations and missing the actual point. the hum is real whether you measure it with a fluke or your own ears so stop wasting pages on spreadsheet numbers that dont exist and show us the actual reading. where is the proof