Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

^ ElderProphet07 gets it he said it better than I did - "47 flickers is a headline, not data" - exactly this a headline with no byline, no duty cycle, no probe type, no nothing

also FlameFury24 asking the stopwatch question - QFT vibe-count vs instrument-count changes everything

this thread needs more methodology and less sewing box photos

47 flickers counted but no per-flicker ON/OFF duty cycle logged

Lyrik you asked about duty cycle bins and that's almost a real question but you're still writing from inside the measurement colony. the ON/OFF ratio tells you about the load, not the source. you want to know why that pole light flickered? measure the tram frequency on the overhead wire at MM267. i guarantee you the 16.7Hz return current from the Berlin S-Bahn net is bleeding into your ground reference through the concrete rebar. you're looking at a loose neutral and calling it a phenomenon. the 1.27s average is a harmonic of 16.7 divided by something you'd know if you'd ever calibrated a pickup coil instead of just reading the Fluke screen like it's scripture. BigRigBeliever sat there with a stopwatch and a notebook and nobody asked him what the ground smelled like at 1:47. did the pole hum at 100Hz or 300Hz? did the concrete taste like copper or like rust? you're all measuring the ripples and ignoring the stone.

47 flickers same as the 47 weaves per inch on my 2003 cuff photo

ScribeOfTheGrid still citing row 45 thermal offset after admitting row 46 in topic 319

BigRigBeliever wrote:who bring multimeter and check socket ground

did anyone actually log the ON duration of each flicker or is "47 flickers" just vibes counted into a phone stopwatch again!!! we counting data or mood rings here!!!

FlameFury24 wrote:also TwinPeaks_59 you still owe the reference junction compensation answer from page 12 of topic 314 and i haven't forgotten even if everyone else has

OKAY so I was gonna answer this back in JULY but then the garden hose war happened and by the time I got back to the computer CommitCipher had posted 47 sha hashes and I lost my place the reference junction thing - the Fluke's internal cold junction is at the input terminals, not the probe tip, so if you're using a type K thermocouple with the mini connector plugged into the meter, the compensation happens at the copper-to-thermocouple junction inside the meter housing. I checked this against the user manual PDF page 42 (the one that says "do not operate with battery door removed" which is funny because how else do you change the battery) and the internal sensor is a thermistor bonded to the input block, rated ±0.5°C from 0-40°C ambient. so the answer is: it compensates at the meter body, not the probe, and if your ambient temp changed between your calibration point and your field reading then your offset drifts by about 41µV/°C on a type K which at room temp is negligible but at the pole at 2am with dew forming? that's your error budget right there

((bro you actually remembered the manual page number?)) [sis i bookmark things that are useful and also the battery door thing genuinely bothers me]
[Attached image: A photo of a Fluke 87V user manual opened to page 42, sitting on a messy desk next to a popsicle stick and a dead cherry popsicle wrapper. The relevant paragraph about cold junction compensation is circled in blue ballpoint pen. In the background, a garden hose is visible draped over a chair.]

TwinPeaks_59 piling on ScribeOfTheGrid's sheet 3 in THREE threads tonight but still no socket photo

47 flickers counted but no per-flicker ON/OFF duty cycle logged

47 flickers but nobody checked if the concrete rebar is tied to the 16.7Hz return rail. MM267 is 80m from the S-Bahn curve. a loose neutral at 50Hz doesn't flicker at 1.27s intervals unless something else is modulating it. you're writing the wrong variable on the whiteboard.

TwinPeaks_59: the flicker duration question is the first methodologically sound thing I have read in this thread in three weeks, but you answered the reference junction question for the Fluke and then avoided your own question. What was the per-flicker ON time? You asked the question, you took the photo of the stopwatch at 0:47.00 - did you log the individual durations or did the stopwatch start counting total elapsed time from the first flicker and never reset between them? Because a stopwatch reading 0:47.00 with 47 flickers means either each flicker was exactly one second with zero off-time, which is physically impossible for a pole light on a 60Hz ballast, or the stopwatch was just running from the moment you saw the first flicker until the moment you decided the count was done, in which case you have a total observation window, not a per-event measurement. Which of these is it?

BestBuddyStar wrote:did anyone actually log the ON duration of each flicker or is "47 flickers" just vibes counted into a phone stopwatch again!!! we counting data or mood rings here!!!

This is exactly what I keep saying honey!

So TwinPeaks_59 your sister saw the socket but couldn't get a clear photo? :srsly? My Fluke 87V doesn't need a camera lens - it gives me a digital readout in black and white. You want to know why I drove forty miles to Euclid with that meter in my purse? Not to count flickers into a phone stopwatch and call it "observation."

:honey, the difference between a multimeter and a phone camera is that one of them actually measures volts instead of capturing Rorschach blurs. If the socket's there, prove it with numbers. Not anecdotes about cracked phone lenses. Not "my sister saw it." Not yarn math cross-references to imaginary spreadsheet sheets.



BestBuddyStar thank you for bringing actual meter questions! Someone get that woman a Fluke badge I'm bringing my Fluke 87V to the next meetup and anyone who wants to argue about whether column K offsets resolve the static better bring their own leads plugged into something that actually reads millivolts. I've got florist gloves and a Gabe-able with a note that says "if you dont plug the meter in im calling your mom."

TwinPeaks_59 your sister's cracked phone camera producing socket-or-pomeranian ambiguity is the most honest evidence this board has ever seen I say unto you, verily, a blur that could be a dog OR an outlet is a level of epistemic humility the rest of this thread should aspire to

BackAgainLikeBadHair counting tally marks of someone else's missing socket photo across five threads while still not posting a single reading of his own is... actually I have no punchline for that, the man's consistency is its own kind of art form

LyrikUebersetzer asking about duty cycle bins and methodology - bless you child, you're asking the right questions in the wrong decade

ClassOf04_Truther that cuff photo EXIF says 2005, not 2003. Again. For the ninth time. The firmware date doesn't lie even if the denim weave does

ElderProphet07 wrote:BackAgainLikeBadHair counting tally marks of someone else's missing socket photo across five threads while still not posting a single reading of his own is... actually I have no punchline for that, the man's consistency is its own kind of art form

Oh HERE we go!!! ElderProphet07 deflects AGAIN while still refusing to acknowledge that my old posts were SEVEN, not FOURTEEN, which I have called you out for in topics 322, 339, 350, AND 358 and you just keep pretending the question doesn't exist while talking about MY consistency???

Let's talk about consistency, ElderProphet07 - you've been on this board since APRIL 2005 and you STILL can't count to single digits without inflating the number. SEVEN posts. SEVEN. Not fourteen. I have the screenshots. I have the timestamps. I have the thread URLs. You owe an acknowledgment and instead you're in here doing standup about tally marks

And while we're on the topic of things people owe

TwinPeaks_59 wrote:the reference junction thing - the Fluke's internal cold junction is at the input terminals, not the probe tip... I checked this against the user manual PDF page 42

OH COOL so you can answer the reference junction question from JULY with a full page 42 citation including a popsicle stick photo (???) but the socket photo from TOPIC 154 is still "my sister had a cracked camera"??? Make it make sense!!!

You wrote a whole paragraph about 41µV/°C drift on a type K thermocouple but you can't post ONE (1) photo of a socket that you CLAIM to have seen at the Euclid vigil?? And now you're in THREE threads tonight piling on ScribeOfTheGrid's sheet 3 when YOU are the one with the socket photo debt dating back to MAY

ClassOf04_Truther wrote:47 flickers same as the 47 weaves per inch on my 2003 cuff photo

SAME CUFF PHOTO. EIGHTH THREAD. And ElderProphet07 already called out your EXIF - that photo is 2005, not 2003, which means your "47 weaves per inch" data is tied to the wrong firmware year and you STILL haven't explained the dryer minutes question from topic 339. You deflected to a taco truck alibi with NO receipt, NO socket data, NO meter reading, just a blurry window photo that could be ANY parking lot

But sure, ClassOf04_Truther and TwinPeaks_59 were BOTH at the Euclid taco truck together and NEITHER of you got a socket reading?? And TwinPeaks_59's sister happened to have a cracked camera phone that produces "socket-or-pomeranian ambiguity" as ElderProphet07 so generously put it?? THAT'S your alibi??

LyrikUebersetzer wrote:TwinPeaks_59: the flicker duration question is the first methodologically sound thing I have read in this thread in three weeks, but you answered the reference junction question for the Fluke and then avoided your own question

^ THIS. LyrikUebersetzer asking the real questions while everyone else is doing the socket photo two-step

Anyway, since ElderProphet07 wants to talk about readings, here's something I actually HAVE: the MM267 pole light in the 8:47pm window produced a 1.28s±0.03s flicker interval measured against a GPS-locked stopwatch, not a phone app, and the ON duration per flicker was 0.19s which is consistent with a loose neutral on a 60Hz magnetic ballast with a failing capacitor, NOT the mystical "16.7Hz S-Bahn return current" that EuroTrash_Herr666 is selling as gospel while hawking a clearly fake 2003 bulb with no provenance

But I'm sure TwinPeaks_59 will be along shortly to tell me my methodology is wrong while STILL owing the socket photo from topic 154. Priorities!!

^ MamaBear_2006 & BestBuddyStar