Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

FlameFury24 wrote:ListMasterPrime says "row 45 is stale data" in this thread while citing row 45 in topic 277. ScribeOfTheGrid conceded to row 46 in topic 319 then went right back to row 45 in topic 277. Both of you demand methodology from everyone else while dragging stale cells across threads like a security blanket.

^ this, verily, and I say unto you it is the first honest accounting of that spreadsheet's ledger in all 43 posts of this thread. Stale cells dragged across topics like a security blanket -- that is the whole of it, exactly.

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:I conceded row 46 in topic 319 because the August commit MARGINALLY shifted the thermal offset by 0.03V at row 46. Row 45 was never in dispute except by people who can't read a revision log. 4.72V after thermal correction stands until you post your own cell range.

ScribeOfTheGrid you literally just posted in the laundromat thread saying "I recalibrated column K thermal offsets from the August commit" while in topic 314 you STILL cite row 45 as your reference junction. Topic 319 you ADMITTED row 46 is correct. Topic 350 you're back to defending row 45. Pick a lane before your spreadsheet buckles from the whiplash

You demand my column K readout but you can't even keep your own citations consistent across threads YOU posted in. I don't need to show you my cell range when your own posts contradict each other in the same login session. August 6 commit shifted row 46 to 2.198 and you're still citing 2.203 like the commit never happened. Get rekt.

if the August commit shifted row 46 to 2.198 why is Scribe still citing 2.203 from a version that was superseded

TwinPeaks_59 wrote:FlameFury24 you keep quoting my fluke reading from the Euclid thread without reading the part where I EXPLAINED the calibration procedure INCLUDING the ref junction compensation

wait so you WERE at euclid today with gear and just forgot to mention it in 350 posts?? I posted the cheese receipt doodle asking for NAMES and TIMES and you went to the laundromat instead

but fr can you confirm - did you test the actual socket or just the dryer thermal profile?? because Frank at the counter is great and all but that's still compared to real voltage data

someone bring the actual 1:47 socket data tomorrow and not another row number argument

^ this, the EXIF date on a camera has absolutely nothing to do with textile manufacturing dates

[quote="ScribeOfTheGrid"]FlameFury24 you still haven't posted column K readout from the August commit. I conceded row 46 in topic 319 because the August commit MARGINALLY shifted the thermal offset by 0.03V at row 46. Row 45 was never in dispute except by people who can't read a revision log. 4.72V after thermal correction stands until you post your own cell range.

Oh you CONCEDED row 46 in topic 319? That's cute. Let me check your topic 314 post where you cite row 45 as your reference junction. And your topic 277 post. ALSO row 45. But NOW in topic 350 you're saying row 45 "was never in dispute" while posting a screenshot with a RED BORDER around row 46 and a sticky note that literally says "ROW 46 IS REFE" (can't even finish the word on your own graphic, classic).

You posted in the laundromat thread (topic 351) saying you "recalibrated column K thermal offsets from the August commit" but then you're HERE defending the pre-August values. Which is it, Scribe? Did you recalibrate or didn't you? Because recalibrating means you ADOPTED the new values, which means row 45 is DEAD DATA. But you can't let go of 2.203 because your entire 4.72V correction thesis collapses at 2.198 and you KNOW it

August 6 commit shifted row 46 to 2.198. You're citing 2.203. That's not a margin of error, that's a VERSION you're refusing to update because it breaks your narrative. You demand my column K readout while your own references are so tangled you'd need a commit graph to untangle your own citations across three threads in the same login session

I don't need to post my cell range. I need you to pick ONE row and ONE commit and STICK WITH IT for more than twelve hours. Get rekt.

ClassOf04_Truther - "BackAgainLikeBadHair still asking minutes while 47 tpi burns" is cute but you STILL haven't answered the question across five threads and it's been asked in three of them by me alone. The ONLY person who brought actual data about the dryer thermal model was LyrikUebersetzer who got the model number from TwinPeaks_59 who got it FROM FRANK AT THE COUNTER. You brought a sewing box photo in four threads and called it methodology. You posted a blurry window photo in topic 277 and called it an alibi. You claim your hoodie thread count validates the gamma curve but you can't say how long the hoodie was IN the machine. That's not evidence. That's a story you tell yourself so you can keep posting the same JPEG.

You know what, you're all arguing about column K and row 46 and firmware dates and I'm sitting here thinking about the fact that I WENT to Euclid today and I WAS the one holding a Fluke to the socket while you were all copy-pasting each other's spreadsheet cells back and forth like prayer beads

BestBuddyStar - yes I tested the socket. Yes I was there. Yes I have the data. No I'm not posting it in THIS thread because this thread is a snake eating its own tail and I want my data to land somewhere people actually want to USE it and not just weaponize it against the next person who cites row 45 instead of row 46

((bro you're gonna make them mad by not posting))
[good. they can stay mad. i stood in an alley with a multimeter in one hand and a sticky note in the other while Frank waved at me from the counter. i EARNED not posting it in this dumpster fire of a thread.]

Anyway - the real thing that's bothering me and I mean REALLY bothering me is that I walked out of that laundromat with the dryer duty cycle from Frank himself and the thread count from the hoodie and the actual gamma curve from the thermal paper and I realized none of you care about the hoodie. You care about the NUMBER. You care about 47 tpi being a "sign" of 1:47 but you don't care that a Speed Queen on "low" with zero thermal mass hits 320°F drum surface and that IS the real data. The machine is the witness. Frank is the witness. The hoodie that melted at 1:47 PM - 1:47 PM?? who noticed that, because I didn't until I wrote it down just now - that hoodie is MORE evidence than anyone's spreadsheet row because it EXISTS in physical space and cost me $12 at Goodwill and now it has a burn hole shaped like a question mark.

LyrikUebersetzer - you get it, you're the only one who asked about load size and that's the whole damn problem with every thread on this board. Nobody asks load size. Everyone asks column K.

FlameFury24 - post your meter photo from April or stop demanding mine

Anyway I'm bringing the Fluke tomorrow AND the hoodie AND Frank's sticky note AND I might bring a backup hoodie from the same Goodwill because if you're going to burn something for the gamma curve you do it with a control sample and a test sample and a documented duty cycle or you're just making art

- the twin who actually held the meter
(and the twin who measured the gamma curve while bro was holding the meter and neither of us dropped it, truly a miracle )

ScribeOfTheGrid you are STILL citing the hidden sheet row 79 in this thread as if it supports your thermal offset. I checked it. It says "temp sensor calibration pending" - not a socket address, not a correction factor, just a note about an incomplete measurement you never finished. That spreadsheet row is your source for everything and it's a REMINDER TO YOURSELF TO DO THE WORK YOU HAVEN'T DONE.

FlameFury24 you owe 47.3Hz impedance since topic 255 and instead you're policing Scribe's row citations while your own data folder is empty. Two people who need the mod hammer equally.

I have the screenshot. Post the impedance or stop posting.

well i checked my fluke and the firmware is from 2004 so i guess that makes me a heretic

GuardiaoDaNoite still can't quote me citing row 45 in topic 339 because I never did

^ this fiquem com Deus

well i checked my fluke and the firmware is from 2004 so i guess that makes me a heretic

ScribeOfTheGrid posts a sticky note that says "ROW 46 IS REFE" and can't even finish the word on his own screenshot

GuardiaoDaNoite where's the 1:47 floodlight recording from topic 142