Autopsy of an E-meter

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
Nice link. I've looked at these analyses before. It clearly seems that the original Wheatstone bridge design has remained (the old fashioned) circuit board, and the digital control board is an after thought rather than an integration.

I have often thought that Stainless Steel electrodes taped under consistent pressure to the forearms would prove far more useful than cans in thae hands.

I still think this curvy design looks like something designed for and then rejected by Star Trek.

Who cares about the TA countdown gauge? Only some stat collector. You know if your PC is gaining or not. I'm happy with my wooden box--even if it's a left handed model!
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
This seems like an otherwise very sensible analysis from an expert electronics guy who has obviously never seen an e-meter in use or held the cans personally.

Paul
 

ULRC/S

Patron with Honors
I can promise you one thing: there are no 1950's germanium transistors in either of these new emeters - none!

The MK 5 was a 60's piece of equipment that worked as it was intended to, that's about the best thing that can be said for it.

But the Mk6 was a criminal product, using the same bullshit circuit design and actual circuit board of the Mk 5, in a fancy space age looking case, with a TA counter added. In the near 20 years between the design of the Mk 5 and the Mk 6, any half competent electronic engineer could have designed an emeter using opamps that: 1/ didn't drift with changes in temperature or battery state, 2/ never needed re-calibration after leaving the factory and 3/ showed reads far clearer.

I did exactly that with our Alphametrics meter made & sold during the 80's - it took all of a week to design and prototype. And the new meters are as good or even better.

While I was in LA in 82 on OT levels, I went out to Gold, and spoke with a tech who claimed he'd been on the MK6 project. He said LRH had decided that the overshoot on the Mk 5 needle should be reduced from 43% to 7%, but at the last moment changed his mind as it meant "students would have to retrain".

No, not true, our meter used this 7% and most experienced auditors never noticed - just saying "the reads are really clear".

There can be advances!

Regards, Allen
 
Top