Discussion in 'Projects' started by DeathHamster, Nov 26, 2013.
It only has one position... straight up and fuckin' vertical!
Directly affect the needle.
Past 5 seconds worth of samples and the needle displayed the difference.
So which is it? My Carrier Wave wants to know.
Visual Aidz? More like Visual. . .I think you see where I'm going with that.
Not exactly. The DAC drives the meter which is a magnified view of the TA (tone Arm) position.
There has to be a A to D that will cover the full resistance range. The e-meter will read the resistance (the TA), and via the sensitivity setting, will show the instantainous changes in resistance, magnified on the meter face.
JUST SAY IT! STOP TRYNA CONFUSE ME.
Of course the thing could be programmed to "mock up" readings, no? Making one appear to need further expensive courses?
Just a thought
Yes, exactly. It's driven by software, and it's a 12 bit DAC. 4096 actual needle positions across the meter range.
50,000 BTs carry the wave to the needle. Trufax.
The DAC retranslates the bit value obtained from the microcontroller calculation into an analog value that can drive the needle.
But it loses half its precision in doing so, since it takes a value encoded over 24 bits and renders it over 12 bits.
What was the point of adding a 24 bits ADC to replace the microcontroller's onboard one if it's to lose half your precision ?
And I won't get into how utterly nonsensical that whole signal substraction over a 5s buffer is, WTF ?!? Is it meant to be a derivative of the signal ? If so, it's got to be one of the most inept way I've ever seen this done. Does the needle wait between those 5s "reads" ? Is it a pair of circular buffers with a phase equivalent to one sample ? That's the only way this stuff would make sense. Else it's a simple substraction of noise sampled over 5s.
As I understand it, the original idea was to use a Wheatstone bridge to measure and zoom in the "change of resistance" pattern.
The TA gives you the overall resistance reading. (for example the range of 200 ohms to 200 K - I'm guessing)
The Sensitivity setting shows the width of the window (the meter movement is the window). (again guessing a width of 1 K , as an example.)
The frequency response would be DC to 20 Hz (again guessing). Anything outside this would be filtered out. The only other filtering, could be allowing for the inertia of the meter movement itself, and for the digital sampling rate itself.
Aside from the function of the meter, you can add security measures. Anything outside of this can be induced confusion, as the PUBs speaker probably has no clue what he is talking about, and he is reading from some idiotic bull sheet, which can be full of half-truths (red herring).
Here's my question. If these things are so nifty and sophisticated, why do they still bother with Analog needle?
My College Electrical Physics lab gave each table a digital Multimeter.
And since these are supposed to be used for an entire session, wouldn't a digital meter that could automatically track readings with Time be super useful? Granted I don't exactly know what Scis do with the reading when someone is in session, but I don't see how it couldn't hurt. At the very least, wouldn't it show how you were "charged" before at the start of the session and that by the end you are a "floating needle"
I'm trying to make sense of that in words most people use when they talk of electronics, and I just can't.
What's a "change of resistance pattern" ? A derivative ? Because there are very, very simple circuits that can do that. It's also possible to do it numerically.
A Wheatstone bridge is not one one of those circuits. A Wheatstone bridge is an arrangement of high precision resistors of known values that allows you to get a more precise measure of an unknown resistance using a simple equation for equivalent resistance, like so:
Nope. The thing you describe is not "overall resistance reading". It's a change of settings to accommodate a different scale. The reason to do this is to guarantee a certain relative precision at lower readings. In an analog instrument, the window the needle moves in is limited in size. If you don't allow different settings according to different scales, relative error on lower values will be quite high since they represent a very small portion of the display. Same principle applies to digital devices, but window in this case is replaced with the limited resolution in bits - lower values might be completely truncated if you don't rescale.
That also makes no freaking sense.
There is no "frequency response" or filtering involved here. In sane people speech, that expression designates the way a circuit responds according to input frequency,and is often displayed in graphs such as these :
If there were higher frequency noise, they'd be in deep doo-doo with a sampling rate at 240 Hz. It would mean any noise at a frequency of 120 Hz and over would hopelessly alias the signal and they would be unable to reconstruct it. If there were any high frequency noise, you'd have to filter it before sampling, else it is unpossible since you've lost the info on that signal during sampling.
Furthermore, filtering involves different frequencies present in a signal. There isn't any in here. Nothing oscillates periodically. It's just a DC tension that varies a bit as the person's grip on the cans vary slightly.
That's a freaking understatement.
Wouldn't they lose half the precision by going from 24 bits to 23 bits?
Of course. LSB is 2^12 greater, which means 4096 times less precision. But since they slide the scale before display, I guess the loss is not that much.
And so, even with >99.9% of the accuracy removed, still nothing of value was lost.
You guys know that this is a "machine" for reading the "souls" of murdered space ghosts right? I doubt that it does anything physical at all. If anything, it seems to be a means of putting malware on people's computers.
Which makes me wonder, isn't it illegal to put malware on someones computer? Maybe we should investigate the software a little bit more closely.
Well, to me, the major thing that makes no freaking sense is that some asshole in the 50s was actually able to become a zillionaire by inventing a religion based on a parlor game he stole from a guy who invented a toy. Because that shit says some seriously bad things about the human race.
One thing that always surprise me is how most ex-scientologists insist, against all the dox and patient explanations you can give them, that the e-meter is not an ohmmeter and that it does not measure resistance. Some resort to truly bizarre contorsions to explain their "wins", including theorizing that the tiny current output by the device releases endorphins. If that were the case, it'd be profitable to sell ohmmeters or Van der Graff generators on the black market.
Then you get the inevitable comparison with other devices that measure electrophysiological currents which operates with a completely different, and way more sensitive sensor, that is a galvanometer. The e-meter is not a galvanometer. Galvanometers measure currents through the Hall effect, using the magnetic field output by circulating current, which means they operate entirely out of the circuit you're measuring. In the e-meter, you have to become part of the device's circuit by holding two electrodes to measure a tension - that's how ohmmeters operate.
Guise, the e-meter is a souped up ohmmeter that reacts to unconscious variations in sweat and grip on cans. There is no mystery as to what it measures or does. It's a parlor trick.
Would that tend to buffer the readings over a longer time frame, resulting in a more stable reading? If that's the case, then wouldn't the meter more easily show a floating needle? I recall them claiming that auditing times are reduced with the new meter, something that the clams were going "wowowowowow" over.
Not as such. Not if you substact one 5s buffer from another.
However, if you were to apply a moving average filter over a 5s buffer, that would considerably flatten the signal.
Mmmmm... I'll test it on matlab and post the pic.
Edit : Here we go :
30s of noise, no filter
same noise 5s moving average filter:
It's incredibly dumb for them not to realize what it does. Remember back in the day when they used to have actual calibration resistors that they would physically connect the leads to?
That's the whole point of calibrating with a resistor of known resistance, to make sure your meter is reading the correct amount of ohms.
I assume that's for bricking the meter and not the PC running the updater software.
"Attempting to brick device" would suggest that either (a) the updater is a "device", or (b) the updater does not self-destruct upon detecting an out-of-date IAS membership. There is also a string that reads "Resetting Device to Normal Mode", which might be used once the person renews their membership.
According to Fig. #4 of the Mark VIII patent document, the input circuit uses an MC4051 Analog Multiplexer (digitally controlled single throw eight pole analog switch) to connect the 24-bit ADC to four (4) sources: (a) electrodes/cans, (b) 5K calibration resistor, (c) 12.5K calibration resistor or (d) directly to the voltage reference connected to the positive side of sources a-c. The functionality replaces external calibration resistors and permits the MCU to compensate for drift in the voltage reference and the 24-bit ADC front-end circuit (AFAICT, I'm not an E.E.). Frankly, I'm not sure whether that would actually work given that the ADC is connected to the same Analog +V. I don't see any means for detecting whether the regulated +Analog Voltage supply has drifted from the nominal value.
The older model entirely analog meters (Mark V and Mark VI) had to be periodically recertified that they displayed various "reads" identically to Ron Hubbard-approved standard meters of the appropriate type. The various trimmer pots would have to be adjusted until they did and failing that, the meter board and/or movement might have to be replaced. That is how the Silver Certificate program worked when I was at Publications Org US and Hubbard E-Meter Manufacturing from Sep. 1979 through April of 1981.
Michael A. Hobson
Somehow, I don't think so.
I do not believe in thetans/souls/spirits/ghosts/whatever.
According to scientific literature, no they don't.
The closest thing to "mental reactions" that exists is the electrical currents which can be read in the brain with a special super-sensitive type of galvanometer called a SQUID. That's what is used in an EEG. There are ways to use them to control machines, with a bit of training. There is no way an ohmmeter coupled with a Wheatstone bridge can measure these currents.
In other words, you're looking at noise and trying to find patterns with a tool known to yield an extraordinary number of false positives - a human brain. As an example of this, people have been known to falsely hear human voices within white or impulsional noise if they listen to it long enough. Or find human faces in images of random spots.
The numbers displayed by an ohmmeter have absolutely nothing to do with its sampling rate.
I suspect you keep on using a needle because Hubbard was using a needle. Else, it'd be much easier to find your "patterns" in a 'scope trace.
I'm sorry, but that does not make any sense. You seem to be using words that already have precise meanings in the context of science and redefine them to mean something else.
If I want to see an actual pattern in a system, using my eyes alone is the single most shitty way to do that, because they tend to find things that don't exist. To confirm patterns I need to use mathematical tools, like regression, to fit data on a curve. For that, I need a recording of data points.
Those are the things you're trained to look for, and consequently, you find them.
Again, you're using an expression that has a very precise meaning, and even a standard graphical representation - the Bode Diagram - in electronics and redefine it to mean something else that has no relationship with it whatsoever.
Also, if you think digital filtering is generally cheaper than "analog" (?!? do you mean hardware ?) you are wrong. Filters come in a variety of types. There are even non-causal filters which are impossible to build but are used in a mathematical simulation context. Non-causal here means that the filter uses values in the future of the signal for calculation, which violates physical causality.
A software filter, if it goes beyond very simple operations, is often very resource-intensive. Also, as I explained earlier, if your signal contains high-frequency noise (portions with large derivatives/large slopes), you will need to sample it at twice that noise's frequency simply to be able to reconstruct it. A software filter applied to an undersampled signal will scramble it beyond recognition. I can show you a simulated example of this if you wish. It's much cheaper, resource-wise, to apply a hardware low-pass (a low-pass being a filter that cuts off high frequencies) before sampling, especially as a hardware low-pass can be as simple as an RC circuit.
Hmm, I have a hypothesis:
Maybe it is checking resistance, but not in the way that we think. It is a type of Wheatstone bridge, It also reminds me a little bit of the salinity detectors used in the reverse osmosis machines we used to have on the ship(US Navy, not the fucktardwinds). My guess, based upon what i have read about how it was used, is that it is checking the salinity of a persons palms. This would explain how it has been used as a "lie detector", because there have been some psychological studies that show some peoples palms do sweat when lying. It also explains a little bit about the affects of an audit: If a person has a "good" auditing session, then they would have very little sweat on their palms due to nerves.
The problem is that when ever i look at the diagrams for salinity sensors, they are VERY VERY simple. This is an old technology. I no the ones we used had platinum tips. I do not know if this was necessary, or if it was the Navy pissing away tax dollars. So what are the cans made of?
I think sweaty palms are only part of it - it will affect scale of resistance - what they call their "tone arm".
The other part involves the fact that the cans are very large electrodes. In electrophysiology, it is well known that surface of contact affects signal from an electrode applied to skin. That is why they tend to be small, and often a paste will be applied to insure good and constant contact with skin to minimize noise.
A large electrode like the can will generate an enormous amount of noise driven by minute changes in the way the person grips the cans. It think that is what auditors observe.
Also, for the cans, the first e-meters used old V8 cans.
QFT. This is why, "what's true for you is true for you" and the politics of placing 1st person data above third person data (my take on the anarchy idea) seems like a recipe for scientific and cultural disaster.
First person data is stuff you witness and figure out. Second person is hearsay. Third person is when unrelated educated people can follow written methods to witness the same phenomenon the first person saw.
Third person info requires a government of some kind --a corporate entity or set of entities that
- outlives any individual participant
- is capable of archiving all the information that survives certain third person tests
- is capable of rejecting information that fails third person tests
- asserts common rather than private ownership of validated information.
Yes it does do something. It produces a noisy signal that is difficult to interpret.
I knew a chick like that.
<-- forgot to post anonymously
Then analyze it further. All noise should be able to be filtered. What is left and why?
(Go ahead and disprove the e-meter.) But is something actually there? What?
Keep going and who knows, you might even contribute something new to the biological world.
Be as objective as you like. Ultimately, it has to be subjective to count for anything. Think about it. If you can't use it, it is useless.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!