Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

TwinPeaks_59 - Danke, seriously, danke for going back and getting the model number right and the duty cycle info from Frank. The ADE3SRGS173TW01 vs the 162 is actually a meaningful difference because the 173 uses a snap-action thermostat rated for 185°F at the vent but the element itself cycles at full 375°F on a 60% duty during "low" which means the drum surface temperature follows a sawtooth waveform, not a steady state. The polyester melted during the ON phase when the drum surface crossed ~230-250°F and the vent thermostat never saw it because it's downstream of the drum, reading mixed air, not surface temp.

This is the correct thermal model and nobody in 300 posts had it until Frank at the counter told you.

But now I have the question nobody is asking and I mean NOBODY across all six threads where this dryer has been invoked:

What was the load size?

Because the thermal mass of the load directly affects the duty cycle. A nearly empty dryer reaches peak drum temperature faster and holds it longer because there is less wet fabric pulling heat into evaporation. If you were drying a single hoodie on "low" in a commercial-grade machine designed for 30lb loads, the thermal mass ratio is approximately 1:40 (one hoodie ~1.5lb vs machine rating ~60lb fill). The element stays on for its full 60% duty cycle because the vent thermostat never sees enough temperature rise - the drum surface can spike to 320°F+ while the air at the vent reads 130°F because the air volume is moving past a tiny wet load that flash-evaporates and cools the exhaust before the thermostat can trip.

Your hoodie melted because the machine was EMPTY.

Bitte - I am not saying this to embarrass you. I am saying this because if we are going to use this burn as evidence for ANYTHING - thread count validation, thermal gradient alignment, gamma curve confirmation, whatever CommitCipher wants to call it this week - then we need to admit that the burn happened in a near-empty commercial dryer running a duty cycle that no residential "low" setting would produce. The thermal damage zone on the cuff is not a calibrated measurement of the 47 tpi threshold. It is a measurement of what happens when you put one cotton-poly garment into a machine with the thermal inertia of a freight train.

The 47 tpi warp held at the burn line because cotton chars at a higher temperature than polyester melts, and the thermal gradient happened to intersect the cuff at exactly the right point along the sawtooth waveform of the drum surface temperature. If the hoodie had been positioned differently in the drum - if the cuff had been pressed against the drum face during the ON phase instead of tumbling free - the entire hypothesis changes.

ClassOf04_Truther's 47 tpi claim might still be correct. But this dryer test does not prove it. It only proves that polyester melts before cotton, which I could have told you from a materials science textbook without sacrificing a hoodie.

v. 2.3 of the translation is stalled because I keep writing footnotes about thermal tolerance ratings instead of parsing Gabriel's ablative absolute constructions, which tells you everything about where this forum has taken my brain.

CommitCipher wrote:^ this the warp proving what the weft couldn't and it took a burned hoodie to show it.

^ this exactly what I've been saying about the warp since April and now TwinPeaks_59's sister measured the gradient herself so it's not just my word anymore

ClassOf04_Truther still no column J citation for the thread density on the cuff photo. I recalibrated column K thermal offsets from the August commit while you were counting by hand.

TwinPeaks_59 you got the model number but did Frank say what year that 173 was MANUFACTURED

1. Laundromat dryer model ADE3SRGS173TW01 duty cycle 60% at 375°F element; thermostat in vent path only. Respectfully, LMP.

^ this. LurkingObserver42 is the only person in this thread asking whether the dates on the things even match the things. The rest of you are treating a camera timestamp like a primary source when it's about as reliable as a sticky note on a dryer drum.

LyrikUebersetzer - load size was one hoodie one single hoodie. Frank said "yeah that's the problem, these machines are calibrated for wet sheets not a single poly blend" so the thermal mass was basically zero, drum was cycling full heat into air with nothing to absorb it.

((M you said LOAD SIZE MATTERS and I told you it was ONE HOODIE and you said that changes everything))
[sis my thermal model was STILL correct even without the load variable]
((your thermal model said 230f the drum surface was 320f, wrong wrong wrong, i win the taco truck argument))

anyway - the real question is: who's bringing a spare hoodie to the Euclid vigil tomorrow so I can test the dryer theory vs the socket frequency?

frank is the new sunday farewell, the sacred custodian of the dryer and he doesn't even know it yet

BackAgainLikeBadHair - you keep asking for photos I don't have and you keep ignoring the part where I SAID Frank doesn't have the service records because they call a guy named Vic who "comes when he comes" and Vic is the only one who knows the manufacture year. I asked. Frank shrugged. Frank offered me a quarter from the register to "go get a soda and stop asking about the dryer, it's fine, it runs"

That's the data I have. Frank's shrug. The quarter he gave me. The fact that the machine IS running and it DOES hit 320°F on low and that IS a measurement whether or not you can tie it to a year of manufacture. You're treating the absence of a serial number lookup as if it invalidates the temperature reading and it DOESN'T. The thermal paper gamma curve doesn't care what year the dryer was bolted together. The curve IS the curve.

((and the gamma curve aligns with the Tsukuba kiosk paper at 2.203 which is what I've been saying since topic 339 and nobody listened because I said "laundromat" instead of "archive"))

[sis stop saying 2.203 like it proves something, 2.203 proves the paper stock is similar not the EVENT]
((2.203 proves CONSISTENCY across TWO CONTINENTS of thermal paper output which is EXACTLY the kind of signal you say you want))
[the signal is the SOCKET not the PAPER.]
((THE PAPER WAS IN THE SOCKET))
[it was IN THE DRYER.]
((IT WAS IN THE BOTH AND YOU KNOW IT))

... anyway. Frank is my witness. The quarter is my relic. The hoodie is my data. And tomorrow at Euclid I'm testing the socket with the same Fluke I brought today because the firmware is from 2004 and I DON'T CARE because I calibrated it against a Vishay verified by the OSU physics lab on August 9th and that's a paper trail you can follow if you actually wanted data instead of photos

- M (who did the gamma curve)
J (who held the flashlight while sis got a paper cut from the thermal receipt, truly heroic )

§8.4 LyrikUebersetzer your thermal model assumes a steady-state environment which is a direct violation of §8.4 Ambient Conditions and an act of thermodynamic terrorism

You cite 230-250°F for the drum surface during the ON phase but you have not accounted for the fact that the laundromat's HVAC system was cycling at 68°F with a ±2° variance per Frank's statement in post #142. Your model treats the dryer as an isolated system, ignoring the convective heat loss coefficient of the surrounding air mass. The difference between 250°F and 320°F is not "thermal mass correction" - it is a failure to calibrate your ambient temperature sensor against the building's actual thermostat reading.

Furthermore, you claim the snap-action thermostat rated for 185°F never saw the peak because it is downstream. This implies the vent path has zero thermal resistance, which violates basic fluid dynamics principles codified in §8.4.b. You cannot measure the element cycle without measuring the vent temperature simultaneously. TwinPeaks_59 posted one photo of a sticky note labeled 'LOAD SIZE: ?' and you built a dissertation on it. Where is the vent probe data? Where is the ambient sensor log? You are speculating based on a single data point from a man who works at a counter.

Also, ClassOf04_Truther still hasn't provided the column J citation for the thread density gradient on the burned cuff. I see you all celebrating "validation" while the primary evidence remains uncited.

ClassOf04_Truther - you posted that you were "at the taco truck" in topic 277 right after TwinPeaks_59 posted ACTUAL SOCKET DATA from the Euclid intersection with a photo of his sister at the taco truck, and your photo is a BLURRY SHAPE through a window that could be literally anyone holding a taco. You posted the same sewing box JPEG in FOUR threads and you STILL haven't answered how many minutes the dryer ran when you measured the 47 tpi on your hoodie cuff. LyrikUebersetzer proved the thermal load model changes everything about the duty cycle and you just posted "^ this what I've been saying since April" like you contributed anything. You didn't. You posted a photo of a sewing box and called it evidence. TwinPeaks_59 showed up with a meter, his sister, a taco truck, and a frequency reading. You showed up with a blurry photo through a truck window that you CLAIM is you. I don't believe you. I think you took that photo from someone else's archive and called it a witness statement because you've been caught in a 2003/2005 EXIF lie and now you need to be seen at Euclid without actually having been there.

1. Laundromat dryer model ADE3SRGS173TW01 duty cycle 60% at 375°F element; thermostat in vent path only. Respectfully, LMP.

Frank's shrug is the only peer review that matters

FormatKing__88 wrote:You cannot measure the element cycle without measuring the vent temperature simultaneously.

buy a second meter or stop whining

BackAgainLikeBadHair still counting minutes while the 47 tpi keeps counting itself