>From what I have been told, the changes introduced into Quantum Meter are
a higher sensitivity automatically adjusted according to TA.

This is definitely in accordance to LRH Tech.

1- Sensitivity HAS to be raised in order to keep a needle responsive as TA
goes up. The Higher the TA the smaller the drop on the meter for thesame
amount of energy pciked by the meter that causes a read.

An auditor may have to raise the sensitivity and this is even recommended
in a number of Bulletin (NOTs, L-10, L-12, and number of late 70s HCOBs).

It is difficult to adjust the sensitivity setting (and even more so the
Booster), without distracting the pc (auditor Code Break), so this is a
desirable change, unless the needle becomes too loose to be read
correctly.

In sec-checking, an auditor increases the sensitivity as needed. Witholds
can cause the needle to pack up. A tick is NOT a read. It may develop into
a fall, but until it does it is not and will never be a read. In some
auditing procedures, a tick is always investigated (typically
sec-checking), and at Flag an auditor will be virtually cremated if he
dares to walk off a tick in sec-checking without investigating. A proper
investigation will eventually bring out the reading item. There are dozens
upon dozens of LRH references on that point.

There are no references making it desirable for a needle to swing, except
because this is the best technology can offer. A primitive Needle
mechanism would offer a choice between high sensitivity and tight needle.
The more sensitive mechanisms will cause a greater needle bounce. In order
to remedy the excessive bounce, the mechanism need to be made less
sensitive. Therefore because of technological limitations, one must make a
compromise between sensitivity and excessive bounce.

A solution appears to have been provided with the C-Meter link to a
computer. With no needle inertia, you get 100% what the minds shows.

A needle movement has mass and inertia, this is the sole reason why there
is a swing (unless it is caused by the mind, like an F/N) The older the
technology, the more bounce. I had a discussion with the person at Flag
who was repairing Meter and he showed me a few LRH advices on the subject.

To do C/S 37R to its full glorious EP (only done by Class XIs and above at
Flag), you wish as little bounce as possible.

Judging from my observations on the C-Meter and work done by Ralph on the
emeter, I can see the day where the COS meters will be considered as
obsolute a steam locomotives. The C-Meter and the computer is technology
fit for the XXIth century. COS Meter is based on designs dating from the
1950s.

Pierre Ethier


> Does anyone know of any LRH issue, advice, lecture or other
> communication where the changes introduced by the CofS to E-meters with
> the Quantum are suggested or authorised? Secondly any LRH reference
> where it is stated that the needle should swing around for 3 seconds
> after a read.
> I'm working on a microcontroller needle driver to precisely control
> needle response so any more obscure LRH references that clafify what he
> expected would be appreciated.
> The criteria I'm using so far are that the needle should respond as
> closely as possible to the actual change in the PC and that it should
> respond quickly enough to show a theta bop as defined by LRH which they
> currently don't do. --
> Ralph Hilton
> http://www.ralphhilton.org
> Freezone Directory: http://www.freescientology.org
> FZAOINT http://www.fzaoint.org
> C-Meter: http://www.cmeter.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members-l mailing list
> Members-l@fzaoint.org
> http://fzaoint.org/mailman/listinfo/members-l_fzaoint.org




_______________________________________________
Members-l mailing list
Members-l@fzaoint.org
http://fzaoint.org/mailman/listinfo/members-l_fzaoint.org