Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Tue Aug 4 18:06:02 EDT 2020

Hello Folks:

	I havent posted in some time, I have been too busy auditing
pcs and developing a decent EMeter. I found the mark 6
meters to be junk.

	I posted a page with some animated gifs of comparisons of
Mark 5, Mark 6, and the differences in the movements. They
are a little jerky, I have no camera tripod. You can see it
at http://home.pacbell.net/fzaola/meters.html

	So, the last few weeks, I have developed a good meter. Much
of this was based upon two of Ralph Hiltons meter

	I had the opportunity to test the new Quantum CO$ meter. I
dont have too much to say about it. One of the most major
outnesses is that the TA is purposely calibrated to show
3.25 on an actual 3.0. The reason? Proably something
supressive is my best guess.

	The pictures of the Fautless (catchy name, huh? One of my
pc's coined it.:)) and some of the description are at:

	It has several new bells and whistles, one being an instant
sensitivity booster for use in assessing, and a remote
ta/sensitivity module that works well for either left or
right hand solo or dual auditing.

	I would be interested in your comments. A digital meter can
be built and sold for around $500, and a analog meter for
about $350.

	I can also replace all the Mark 5 guts for about $200, and
you will have a good meter that reads well, and is not
plagued by a 50 year old electronic design.

	The mark 6 guts can be replaced for about $300. Basically,
all that is good there is the case, knobs, and the ta
counter/clock setup. It uses the same faulty design as the
Mark 5, and its calibration depends on the difference
between two batteries, instead of a fixed voltage regulator.

	Anyway, this Faultless meter is just that. Not too pretty,
but the reads and f/n's are simply beautiful, and the needle
is only slightly affected by pc body motion.

Tommy Thompson

Tommy Thompson
pthorn1 at pacbell.net
http://www.fza.org Freezone America
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/232039 (icq pager)

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Aug  4 18:06:02 EDT 2020 
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but 
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

More information about the Clear-L mailing list