Missing Important Meter Reads in "Standard Tech"

RogerB

Crusader
Folks, I originally posted this to Ralph's thread on: "Quantum meter missing F/Ns"; but after pondering on it, it seemed it is important enough a tech point to have as its own thread to discuss amongst those so inclined, as it might be missed by some who are interested under the other title.


Ralph,

I see these words in your post above: "In my meters I use a damped movement with an electronic booster."

This reminds me of doing some investigation into what design meters were available outside the church some years ago.

From my memory, according to church statements, Hubbard held a patent on his meter "design" which patent was for the invention of reinforcing or boosting the "read" elecronically . . . but it was only the reduction of resistance read that was boosted so as to be be more easily recognized.

Using a Mk VI in solo for many, many years, I found a very important meter reaction/read that per the revised definition of what a "read" is as at 1980 (i.e. reads are falls. LFs, LFBDs etc., ONLY) would not be recognized as a read nor considered important on standard tech lines.

I raise this point because of the datum that only the reduction of resistance value is reinforced in the Hubbard meters.

The read I found to be very important over many years of solo was the instant Rise Read and in particular the Reverse Rocket Read.

These are both acute rises in resistance value - - not slow rising TA or even a soaring TA. But an instant reaction, change of needle characteristic read.

When I was looking for a new meter one of the things I sought was a meter that either had equally reinforced needle action for both rises and falls, or no reinforcement so that my meter would read equally either way.

Bary Pemberty assured me his meter read equally as its registering of resistance change was reinforced equally for rises and for falls.

So what's the importance of the "rise read?"

It signifies an instant, huge, even violent build up of mass or energy in the mind or on the case.

Chasing this down over the years, I found it to be caused by an own counter-effort or counter-cause against self or one's own truths, virtues, goodness, etc.

The violent "Reverse R/R" (and they can explode to blow right off the dial to your left as you look at it. It rockets up to blow up to need .25, .5 or a full div of TA to center the needle again) is the more spectacular, and I've found it to always signify a violent reversal of self, of one's own virtues, goodness, wholeness, presence, knowledge, truth, etc. In other words, such a read is caused by contacting an old, deeply buried insane (or otherwise you could label it, an "evil") act or intention against self. (It's like it's the rise half of an R/S.)

These old events, obviously have gotten well hidden over the years, and become deeply buried, and out of sight. But, in solo processing, spotting such a read, when followed up on, leads to being able to locate and undo some colossally aberrating and self limiting, self destructive stuff.

The sort of stuff I am talking about are the kind of solutions one comes up with as a purely spiritual or Godly-like Being, wherein in the drama of the moment (or incident) one wholly negates, unmocks or counters one's own presence, power and abilities; or reverses one's own native goodness, etc. This is the hugely self sabotaging type stuff that we have stupidly, though desperately engaged in down the time trail.

I had often wondered why Hubbard knocked out the original e-meter drills tech that a read is any change of needle characteristic . . . and declared that only falls, etc., were reads. Could it be he could not confront nor own up to the truth that he, like all of us, have some very stupid and evil to ourselves type stuff on our cases? Which stupid and evil of course affects those we relate with . . . .

Nah, he was tooooo nice to have pulled that!:whistling:

Anyway, I introduce this item or "rise reads" and the question of whether your and other meters have equal boosting of rises and falls on the meter.

This might be an important tech point for all . . . . I have found it to be so for myself and all I work with.

RogerB
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I have no useful comment on your post itself, Rog. But this write-up below fits into the thread concept, so I am including it. It is part of a far larger write-up I did in 1988 and sent uplines. The responses to the points I made thoroughly convinced me never to query any tech point uplines ever again.

I talk about meter sensitivity 16 being twice sensitivity 8. I know that it isn't exactly twice on the Mark V, VI or VII, but the overall concept is still valid. It would have been too complex to use the actual figures.

IGNORING CHARGED AREAS

Per HCOB UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS, HCOB UNREADING FLOWS one does not run an unreading question or item.

With the sensitivity set for one third of a dial drop on can squeeze, if the read is not 1/4 inch or better then there is either not sufficient pc charge or sufficient pc reality to run anything. If one gets a read of 1/8 inch, one puts in Suppress and Inval, maybe Misunderstood, and if still no read leaves it.

Now, in a confessional, one ADJUSTS the sensitivity. The lowest sensitivity one uses is that determined by can squeeze to give a third of a dial drop. The highest is well, per HCOB SECURITY QUESTIONS MUST BE NULLED, 16 (which at the time on the Mark IV was the highest available sensitivity); per EME Chapter H it is a "high sensitivity knob — and you DO turn up the knob on the question that didn't respond well at first and then turn it back before you go on to the next." Per HCOB 28 Sept 1961 it is one dial drop or more on can squeeze.

Let us take an example, and let us say the can squeeze sensitivity is 8, one is rechecking questions at 16, and we shall assume that sens 16 is twice as sensitive as sens 8.

In this example the pc HAS kicked a cat, there is some charge on the fact, and he has some reality on it, and his ruds aren't out and the auditor's TRs are in and so forth.

The auditor asks the question "Have you ever kicked a cat?" and the pc/bank reacts with an electrical impulse which affects the meter.

A. The sens is set at 8, and the needle falls 1/8 inch.
B. The sens is set at 16, and the needle falls 1/4 inch.

Per HCOB CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE the handlings are different. Point 7 states that one shouldn't assume one has a read because one has a tick. Put in suppress etc. and it will either read or the tick will vanish. In B one takes it up straight away; in A one continues with buttons trying to get an "acceptable" read or an F/N. This doesn't make sense. The PC's reaction to the question is TOTALLY independent of the mechanical settings on the E-Meter.

E-METER ESSENTIALS, both original and current version, says "In running rudiments, when suspicious, set the sensitivity knob higher... In looking for suspected withholds in particular, read with a high knob."

I do not know if one still checks for and handles out-ruds at any sensitivity level. I have seen references later than this which say one is not trying to run the case with rudiments, so keep it to a third of a dial drop, and I have seen a reference which says that sens 16 is needed to get the ruds in so the pc knows it. If the datum now is that one does check for out-ruds at higher sensitivity than one third dial can squeeze, then my comments stand as written below. If this datum is not now true then the paragraph above should be changed.

The original version, Chapter F, under FALL, point 4, says "a falling needle makes a dip to the right as you face the meter. A fall may consist of half a division (about one-eighth of an inch) or may consist of fifteen dials... It is still a fall."

Point 8 says "ANY fall denotes there is something there. Any fall at ANY sensitivity level on rudiments questions denotes the presence of a bad reaction to the room, an ARC break, a withhold or a present time problem and MUST BE CLEARED no matter what the preclear says."

Now the current edition of EME has changed these points to "A fall may consist of about a quarter of an inch..." and "ANY sF, F, LF or LFBD denotes there is something there. ANY of these at ANY sensitivity level...."

There is no effective difference between a 1/8 inch fall at sens 8, a 1/4 inch fall at sens 16, and a 1/2 inch fall at sens 32 (assuming sens 32 to be twice sens 16, and sens 16 to be twice sens 8). So it is silly to limit it to a sF at any sensitivity level and will result in the auditor ignoring a charged question. Very recently I checked a mid-session MWH rud question — actually at sensitivity 16 — and got a 1/8 inch fall, which I took up and it ran fine. I got a cram on it from the Tech C/S ITO, ref C/S Series 24. But if I had doubled the sensitivity before asking the question and thereby created a 1/4 inch fall I certainly would not have been crammed on it!

Let us take another example. One is mid a confessional question. One cannot get the question "Have you ever kicked a cat?" to read or F/N. One puts in buttons, but gets no read, no F/N. The reason for this is the pc has a M/W/H, but of course one doesn't know that.

Let's say that in the course of checking for various things one checks for M/W/Hs.

If the sens is at 8, say, maybe this would happen:

"Has a W/H been missed?" (1/8 inch fall)

"On the question 'Has a W/H been missed' has anything been suppressed?" (x)

"On the question 'Has a W/H been missed?' has anything been invalidated?" (x) (or maybe 1/8 inch fall now)

Maybe one checks other buttons, or varies the question, but they won't necessarily develop the read into a quarter inch fall or better. So then one gets into checking for false reads and ARC Breaks etc., having probably missed a withhold on the pc.

If the sensitivity had been set to 16, one instead would have gotten:

"Has a W/H been missed?" (1/4 inch fall)

and of course one takes it up and gets off the W/H and all is well.

Now, per the original LRH references in EME, one can take up an 1/8 inch fall on a rudiment question, and the situation just described above would not occur. Since there is no effective difference between an 1/8 inch fall at sens 8 and a 1/4 inch fall at sens 16, and per EME the sensitivity knob is just a magnifying glass for the needle, why is one no longer allowed to do so?

On correction lists, per C/S Series 1, "Rudiments = setting the case up for the session action. This includes ARC Breaks, PTPs, W/Hs, GF or O/R listing or any prepared list (such as L1C, etc.)" Per EME one can take up any fall at any sensitivity level on rudiments, so one should be able to take up a tick on a correction list being used as rudiments without putting in buttons to see if "it develops into a sF etc." The HCOB that gives the method of handling a correction list Method 3, HCOB 3 July 1971R AUDITING BY LISTS, even says that one can take up a tick, and this HCOB postdates HCOB UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS, which is dated 27 May 1970.

Today I received a cram from Bridget Sheriff, Snr C/S OSA Int, for taking up a tick on an LCRE. The Cramming Officer, Elane Woodruff, very reluctantly allowed me to do it because of HCOB AUDITING BY LISTS. I later in the interview asked her if there was any reference stating that I couldn't increase the sensitivity before doing an LCRE and she saw nothing wrong in that whatsoever. But since the sensitivity knob is just a magnifying glass for the needle there is no difference at all in 1/8 inch at sens 8 and 1/4 inch at sens 16!

To summarize, my understanding of these materials is that:

1. For most purposes one sets the sensitivity to one third dial drop and doesn't take up reads less than 1/4 inch (one can put in buttons to see if a sF or better develops) because the reality/charge of the pc is not enough to allow it to run profitably.

2. For rudiments, especially withholds, including correction lists and for confessional questions, one should take up and clear ANY fall reaction, a fall being defined in EME as "makes a dip to the right as you face the meter."

Unless there is later LRH data modifying the issues I have quoted, then the current edition (1988) of EME and Point 7 of HCOB CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE will result in auditors failing to take up charged questions at the point they should be taken up, and possibly failing to take them up at all.

-----
 

RogerB

Crusader
I'll Bet it Fused Their Little Minds!

I have no useful comment on your post itself, Rog. But this write-up below fits into the thread concept, so I am including it. It is part of a far larger write-up I did in 1988 and sent uplines. The responses to the points I made thoroughly convinced me never to query any tech point uplines ever again.

I talk about meter sensitivity 16 being twice sensitivity 8. I know that it isn't exactly twice on the Mark V, VI or VII, but the overall concept is still valid. It would have been too complex to use the actual figures.

IGNORING CHARGED AREAS
. . . . . snipped
-----

Well, Sir Paul,

That is one of the most thorough, lucid, detailed, in-depth, rich in citations write-ups I've ever seen . . . . :clap:

I'll bet it fused their little minds when it got up stairs :hysterical:

Were the responses entertaining enough to put up here, or are they so off the wall as to be better left unresurrected?:whistling:

Rog
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Thank you, Rog. Remember the reaction I got was to the entire write-up, provocatively entitled International Tech Errors, much larger than just that section. The other sub-headings in it were:

  • E-Meter Cans
  • Handling of Buttons
  • HCOB Method 5
  • Pc Examiner E-meter Sensitivity
  • False Basal Metabolism Test
  • Adjusting Pc's Chair
  • Method One Word-Clearing
  • New E-Meter Drill Book Errors
  • E-Meter Essentials
  • Courseroom Meter Checks
  • PTS/SP Checksheet Part One
So what happened as a result of this? A few months after I sent it, Bridge started selling sets of cans, which may be purely coincidental.

Personally, I received a polite reply from Ray Mithoff, saying thanks very much and maybe Cramming could help me and maybe I'd like to join RTRC uplines and help out there. I spent some hours with the Cramming Officer and he didn't have any references to refute what I had said. I wrote back to Mithoff and said that, and also that I didn't think I'd make it at RTRC. I ended up getting a long sec check and apparently narrowly avoided getting RPF'd. I didn't learn anything new about the tech matters mentioned, but I certainly learned to keep my mouth shut in matters outside of my own direct post.

Paul
 

Lesolee (Sith Lord)

Patron Meritorious
Paul,

The way I was drilled on this lot for confessionals was to first test at standard sensitivity. If it reads you clean it to F/N. Now you re-check at a higher sensitivity. And not 16, but higher than it was. If it was already at 16 you would go higher. The point was the surface charge has gone, so to get additional answers to the same question you had to boost the sensitivity.

I certainly wouldn't do a correction list at higher than normal sensitivity. That would be the same as taking up ticks, which is silly. Old style rudiments were repetitive to a clean needle. Thus you would have increased the sensitivity there too on subsequent repeats.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
The point was the surface charge has gone, so to get additional answers to the same question you had to boost the sensitivity.

Thanks for how you were trained to do it.

-----

What do you think the mechanics of "surface charge" are? I often wondered.

Now I assume he just means the hottest item(s), the low-hanging fruit. "Surface charge" seems to me to be a misnomer.

Paul
 

RogerB

Crusader
Does the Moustache Help?

Thank you, Rog. Remember the reaction I got was to the entire write-up, provocatively entitled International Tech Errors, much larger than just that section. The other sub-headings in it were:

  • E-Meter Cans
  • Handling of Buttons
  • HCOB Method 5
  • Pc Examiner E-meter Sensitivity
  • False Basal Metabolism Test
  • Adjusting Pc's Chair
  • Method One Word-Clearing
  • New E-Meter Drill Book Errors
  • E-Meter Essentials
  • Courseroom Meter Checks
  • PTS/SP Checksheet Part One
So what happened as a result of this? A few months after I sent it, Bridge started selling sets of cans, which may be purely coincidental.

Personally, I received a polite reply from Ray Mithoff, saying thanks very much and maybe Cramming could help me and maybe I'd like to join RTRC uplines and help out there. I spent some hours with the Cramming Officer and he didn't have any references to refute what I had said. I wrote back to Mithoff and said that, and also that I didn't think I'd make it at RTRC. I ended up getting a long sec check and apparently narrowly avoided getting RPF'd. I didn't learn anything new about the tech matters mentioned, but I certainly learned to keep my mouth shut in matters outside of my own direct post.

Paul

Oh God,

No wonder they wanted to shut you up . . . you tried to make them do some actual thinking! :nervous:

Did you, by any chance, grow the moustache to help keep your mouth shut? :roflmao:

Actually, I think I might update my avatar . . . I was going to match Vin's shot of earnest youth with another boyhood shot of me . . . but after seeing your proud display I might show you my Royal Navy countenance:yes:

Will do some pix editing . . . . . . Here we go!

Rog
 

Attachments

  • Roger the sailor For ESMB.jpg
    Roger the sailor For ESMB.jpg
    16.2 KB · Views: 27

Lesolee (Sith Lord)

Patron Meritorious
What do you think the mechanics of "surface charge" are? I often wondered.

Now I assume he just means the hottest item(s), the low-hanging fruit. "Surface charge" seems to me to be a misnomer.
C/S Series 24 Metering reading items
"The read is taken when the pc first says it or when the question is cleared. THIS is the valid time of read. It is duly marked (plus any blow down). THIS reading defines what is a reading item or question. CALLING IT BACK TO SEE IF IT READ IS NOT A VALID TEST as the surface charge may be gone but the item or question will still run or list."

NED 4R ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM
"Rote procedure gets heavily in the road of a Dianetic assessment. The pc gives a list, the auditor doesn’t watch the reads and note them, then the auditor commonly goes back to assess the list. By that time the surface charge is off. He should have watched the meter in the first place and taken reads while the pc was originating the item. Why all this assessing of the finished list? Of course when you already have a list done by another with no reads marked on it, you have to read it off and mark what reads. And using a list a second time you have to read it off to the pc to see what reads."

It's not indexed in the Tech Vols. I searched the old vols for these refs. :eyeroll:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Oh God,
No wonder they wanted to shut you up . . . you tried to make them do some actual thinking! :nervous:
Did you, by any chance, grow the moustache to help keep your mouth shut? :roflmao:
Actually, I think I might update my avatar . . . I was going to match Vin's shot of earnest youth with another boyhood shot of me . . . but after seeing your proud display I might show you my Royal Navy countenance:yes:
Will do some pix editing . . . . . . Here we go!
Rog

I had the moustache from 1972 to 2004 pretty much. Yeah, I like that pic of yours. I messed with it a bit to make the horizon horizontal. :)

Paul
 

Attachments

  • rog2.jpg
    rog2.jpg
    2.8 KB · Views: 39

RogerB

Crusader
YOu're Too Much . . . Lovably So!

I had the moustache from 1972 to 2004 pretty much. Yeah, I like that pic of yours. I messed with it a bit to make the horizon horizontal. :)

Paul

You're too much . . . but lovably so :yes:

I like my wonky horizon . . . it shows the boat was keeling over in the wind . . . and my sweetie took that picture of which she is proud, while we leaned to the side!:yes:

You don't want to upset the harmony in this household do you . . . . I told her you were all good guys on this board!:happydance:

But, between you and me, we'll keep it for an avatar pic, and then our members won't have to turn their heads to the side to figure out what the hell is going on:yes:

Actually, the whiskers a relatively new. About a year old now . . . who needs to shave when you're able to stay home? And besides, my sweaty says it's soft when I kiss her . . . no whisker rub or prickle:yes: She likes that :happydance:

R
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I like my wonky horizon . . . it shows the boat was keeling over in the wind . . . and my sweetie took that picture of which she is proud, while we leaned to the side!:yes:
R

Actually, yes, it does look better wonky, now that I compare the two, quite apart from any emotional reason for using it.

Paul
 
Top