Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Carl-NC
This stuff has been going on for so long, I can't remember what's been said in the past. Hung seemed to make a Big Deal about the diode, and I wondered why.
Yeah, I remember now that he (supposedly) made internal measurements, but he would never show how to replicate them. Can't do anything with that but dismiss it.
|
Ya, yer right
It was awhile ago. hung was trying to prove he measured variances inside his Examiner. He had a version that was called the "diodes" model that was in production after the version you tested in your report, and his model was replaced with the version I have. The big deal hung complained about is whether a diode was connected to a pot inside his Examiner. Maybe there is a diode connected to a pot like hung says, but nobody knows except hung because he never showed any evidence of it.
But this is not what the forum debate was about. Hung said he measured variances inside his Examiner. But when we asked to see some proof, he did not show any measurements from inside his examiner. He switched the test points to places on the outside instead. The question was posed "why can't we see the variances you claimed to measure from the inside like you said you did?" We never got an answer other than "I opened the Examiner and I made mods" or "there is a diode connected to the pot". But we never saw the alledged measurements hung says he made inside.
The measurements hung made on the outside are highly suspect to be tainted by errors. See what hung presented as a substitute for internal measurements here:
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...light=examiner
As an EE, you can draw your own conclusions of what hung actually measured in his presentation.
Best wishes,
J_P