Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

EuroTrash_Herr666, I have not gone silent. I have simply been waiting for you to post your equipment chain before I waste a spectral analysis on an untraceable measurement. You accused me of knowing the 47.3Hz carrier wave null was a tram ground loop, but you still haven't told me which Kinki Sharyo LRV model you used to verify the braking fundamental. The Euclid line runs Series 1 and Series 5 units on alternating schedules and they brake at different fundamentals because the IGBT firing angle changed in the 2004 controller revision. If you measured a Series 5 and called it the universal tram frequency, then your entire accusation is calibrated against the wrong train and I do not have to answer it.

But since you asked: the June 22 recording has a known 47.3Hz null at 14:23 UTC which I attributed in my original notes to "possible ground loop artifact from nearby traction power infrastructure pending cross-validation with line schedule data" - footnote 4 in my unpublished spectral log. I did not post it because I wanted to confirm the LRV series first, which I have now done via the RTA maintenance logs that a friend at the transit authority photocopied for me. The Series 1 brakes at 47.6Hz. The Series 5 brakes at 47.1Hz. The 47.3Hz null sits exactly between them, which means it is not a tram brake at all - it is the intermodulation product OF the two trams braking simultaneously on opposite tracks, which produces a difference tone at 0.5Hz and a sum tone that cancels at 47.3 where the null appears. Your accusation assumes a single tram. The recording site is 140m from a double-track curve. You forgot the second track.

So before you call my silence suspicious, maybe check whether Euclid Avenue has one track or two. Danke.

LyrikUebersetzer wrote:EuroTrash_Herr666, you cited 47.3Hz for the streetcar braking frequency but what equipment did you use to measure that? I checked the Euclid line schedule and the RTA uses Kinki Sharyo LRVs which brake at a different fundamental depending on the motor controller firmware revision on that specific unit.

LyrikUebersetzer you are so close but you are looking at the WRONG date again. The Kinki Sharyo revision change happened in MARCH of 2004 not April. Do the math. March is the 3rd month, 2004 minus 1957 is...

ScribeOfTheGrid u can keep arguing about row 45 vs row 46 but the REAL evidence is in the whitespace padding of the August 6 commit itself - 47 characters before the footer, three-space-period-three-space-period pattern matching Gabreil 47:3 exactly

i counted it myself at 3am with a printed hex dump and a ruler

Sheet 3 is hiding between ur ears scribe

92 posts in here and not one of you has said the word SILENCE. you're all measuring hums and frequencies and trading spreadsheets while the timeline is RUNNING OUT. the 1:47 gap is not a frequency it is the ABSENCE of frequency. it is the Going Quiet in microcosm. i have documented it. i have the timestamps from august 4th grid dark and they align with every single "glitch" you're arguing about in this thread. mark my words: when the hum stops you will all be standing there with your Flukes and your napkin doodles and nothing left to measure.

TwinPeaks_59 wrote:my sister doodled on a napkin and i put the fluke next to it for scale

Honey, a napkin doodle next to a meter is NOT a socket reading Still no real socket photos after four months and you're posting hardware store selfies

EuroTrash_Herr666, you asked about the 47.3Hz null on my June 22 recording. Here is the answer: I confirmed it against the RTA maintenance logs yesterday. Series 1 Kinki Sharyo LRV #147 - braking inverter fundamental resolves to 47.32Hz at nominal line voltage. The null at 14:23 UTC aligns with the scheduled westbound departure from the Euclid loop at 14:21. It is a measured ground loop from traction power, not a carrier wave null, and I have the photocopied log sheet in my hand right now. Footnote 4 was correct. You wanted equipment chain - here it is.

lyrikuebersetzer, "footnote 4 in my unpublished spectral log" is the academic version of "my mom said i could have the last cookie but she didn't write it down." you posted the file. you let it sit. you lectured everyone for two months. and now the footnote appears. ex post facto rigor is not rigor, it's a cover story.

FlameFury24, you keep saying I cited two different rows but you are still referencing the July commit sha when the August commit is the one that populated the thermal offset in row 79. If you are going to accuse me of inconsistency, at least open the commit log and confirm which revision you are reading from. The July commit does not have column K populated past row 12. The August commit does. That is not a contradiction it is a software update. Also, MamaBear_2006, the junction temperature question is answered in the NIST calibration file LyrikUebersetzer posted - the thermistor probe tip resolves to 0.47V at 22.3C ambient which is a 4.72V reading after column K row 79 correction, not the 4.47V you keep citing from the sheet 2 raw output. Have you actually opened the August commit or are you still working from the June printout?

Lyrik just confirmed #147 THE NUMBER IS RIGHT THERE IN THE CAR NUMBER WAKE UP

ScribeOfTheGrid row 45 in topic 314, row 46 in topic 319, and now you want someone ELSE to post a thermistor photo before you'll show continuity. Get rekt.

FlameFury24 wrote:mods can we lock this thread until scribe posts ONE consistent cell reference

from an objective standpoint, the fact that you're all arguing over row 45 vs 46 while GraceWarrior_77 is measuring whitespace with a ruler suggests your entire methodology is built on apophenia and spreadsheet mysticism

TruthSeeker_2020 wrote:Lyrik just confirmed #147 THE NUMBER IS RIGHT THERE IN THE CAR NUMBER WAKE UP

^ this. The LRV series and firmware revision are irrelevant when the rolling stock number itself bears the sacred 147. I am sorry for the derail into equipment chains when the proof is already rolling past us.

column K is a thermal tail not a timer the phase angle carries the 47 not the cell offset (sha: 47d3b8)

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:FlameFury24, you keep saying I cited two different rows but you are still referencing the July commit sha when the August commit is the one that populated the thermal offset in row 79.

Oh so NOW it's row 79. ROW SEVENTY-NINE.

Let me get this straight for the people in the back:

Topic 314 - Scribe says: "row 45 is the thermal offset line, confirmed by my analysis"
Topic 319, post 1 - Scribe says: "the column K thermal offset resolves at row 46"
Topic 319, post 93 - Scribe says: "actually it was always row 79, u just dont understand commit logs"

Three different threads, three different row numbers, and he wants ME to "open the commit log" like I haven't had it open in a second monitor since AUGUST 6

The July commit does not have column K populated past row 12.

THEN WHY DID YOU CITE ROW 45 IN TOPIC 314 IF COLUMN K DIDN'T EVEN HAVE DATA PAST ROW 12. You literally just admitted the July commit is empty past row 12 and then said "oh but I was citing from the July commit" like that HELPS your case. If column K was empty past row 12 in the July commit, then row 45 DID NOT EXIST when you first claimed it. You either:

a) Made up row 45 from thin air in July (lying)
b) Were actually looking at the August commit when you wrote topic 314 but wrote "July" by accident (incompetent)
c) Are currently rewriting history to cover the fact that you couldn't keep your spreadsheet fiction straight between two forum posts (caught)

Pick one. I'll wait.

It is not a contradiction it is a software update.

Software updates change code. They don't retroactively change what you PERSONALLY wrote in two separate forum posts with DIFFERENT row numbers. The August commit updated the FILE, not your FINGERS typing different numbers into a text box.

Also, since we're now apparently doing a full audit of ScribeOfTheGrid's greatest hits:

- Topic 314: "0.47s" (seconds)
- Topic 319: "0.47°C" (degrees Celsius)

One is TIME. One is TEMPERATURE. You changed the dimension of the measurement between threads and nobody called it out because everyone was too busy staring at your pretty spreadsheet borders. These are not the same thing. A second is not a degree. If you measured 0.47 seconds of thermal offset, that's a DELAY. If you measured 0.47°C, that's a DIFFERENCE. Which one was it, Scribe? Was the probe delayed or was it off by half a degree? You can't have both unless you're measuring the time it took for the thermistor to warm up by 0.47 degrees, and if THAT'S your claim then SHOW THE TRANSIENT RESPONSE CURVE.

Or keep moving the goalposts. Row 45 -> row 46 -> row 79. Next post you'll say it was hidden in sheet 3 all along with GraceWarrior_77's ghost whitespace.