World human population:
Babies need loving homes.
Please adopt. World Chimpanzee population:
Year 2004: ~ 150,000
Present: Probably less! World Gorilla population: ~ 700! | Recent posts- Paranormal update ~ http://glo…
2010, September 2 - Spark of Divinity ~ http://hig…
2010, September 2 - @WhereIsPaulJr http://twitpic….
2010, September 2 - Paranormal update
2010, September 2 - Obtained Bonded NdFeB’s
2010, September 1 - Hue MCU efficiency meter update 5
2010, September 1 - Paranormal
2010, September 1 - I liked a YouTube video — Tib…
2010, August 31 - I liked a YouTube video — Tib…
2010, August 31 - I liked a YouTube video — Tib…
2010, August 31 - I liked a YouTube video — Tib…
2010, August 31 - I liked a YouTube video — Tib…
2010, August 31 - Free Tibet
2010, August 31 - I liked a YouTube video — Tor…
2010, August 31 - I liked a YouTube video — Tib…
2010, August 31
|
The Himalayan Mountains glaciers are not growing. Quote from WikiPedia on the Himalayan Mountains,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Glaciers_and_river_systems
“In recent years scientists have monitored a notable increase in the rate of glacier retreat across the region as a result of global climate change.[5] Although the effect of this won’t be known for many years it potentially could mean disaster for the hundreds of millions of people who rely on the glaciers to feed the rivers of northern India during the dry seasons.[6] “”According to a UN climate report, the Himalayan glaciers that are the sources of Asia’s biggest rivers could disappear by 2035 as temperatures rise and India, Tibet, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Myanmar could experience floods followed by droughts in coming decades.[7]“ Quote from WikiPedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Impact_on_climate
“To complicate matters, temperatures are rising more rapidly here than the global average. In Nepal the temperature has risen with 0.6 degree over the last decade, whereas the global warming has been around 0.7 over the last hundred years.[8]“ Vanishing Himalayan Glaciers Threaten a Billion
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42387/story.htm Glaciers melting at alarming speed (The Tibetan and Xinjiang glaciers)
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90781/90879/6222327.html
Out of tens of thousands of scientists there will always be a lot of bad scientists. We can find quotes from bad scientists that actually say there’s no global warming in the data. What’s dangerous about such statements, scientifically speaking, is that this scientist can’t just *say* there was no global warming found in the data. A scientist presents *data* to back up his or her claim. Also, the scientist needs to be specific. Is he or she talking about the data for the past few years or past 35 years? When considering global warming, we need to consider data spanning decades due to significant fluctuations. A few years of data by itself is meaningless. The global temperature is not going to increase at some fixed temperature every year. The fluctuations are far greater than the steady rise in temperature each year -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png Please take a look at that plot, and take special notice to the fluctuations. It’s really bad science to even suggest that it means something if global warming is down, even for 5 years in a row. Take a look at that graph again, and you’ll see relatively long streaks of global cooling, but then take a look at the entire graph going back 35 years and the pattern begins to become clear. Any scientist who has the nerve to suggest there’s no global warming because of the past two years is not being objective. That’s called poor science. As you can see in the graph, it takes decades to see the global warming pattern. I’ll side with Gavin Schmidt at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies on this that the email hacks offer no proof what so ever that global warming is not real. Gavin Schmidt just publicly said, “There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax”
Early this morning I took a lot more measurements with my Maxwell boostcap BCAP0650 ultracapacitor. After anayzing all of the following data, it is becoming more clear that lower charging current equates to less capacitance, which could indicate excess energy. Although further measurements are required. Measurements taken today show strong indication that the ultracap capacitance increases with an increase in temperature. The room temperature was a considerably lower this morning as compared to last night. For this reason, it is best to conduct short term measurements due to the increase in the ultracaps internal temperature. This means the capacitance shown in the higher current measurements would be even lower yet if the internal temperature was the same as the lower current measurements. I cannot measure the internal temperature, only the external temperature, but it’s safe to say that the rise in internal temperature is related to the amount of charge added to the ultracap, and the time duration. Yesterdays two measurements on the ultracap showed a considerable difference in capacitance. Today’s measurements starts out with a relatively small difference, which was puzzling. Although, as more experiments took place, the capacitance difference became more noticeable. Could this suggest that the effect increases with temperature? All of the following measurements consist of placing a current source on the ultracap. The current was measured. Then the time required to charge the ultracapacitor to a predetermined voltage was recorded. The measurements, continuing from yesterdays two measurements, Recorded in chronology order; i.e., measurement #3 was taken before measurement #4.
Measurement #3:
Capacitor initial voltage: 413 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 423 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 10 mV
Current source: 206.2 mA
Time duration: 26.9 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 555 F Measurement #4:
Capacitor initial voltage: 425 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 435 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 10 mV
Current source: 22.9 mA
Time duration: 245.7 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 563 F Measurement #5:
Capacitor initial voltage: 436 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 446 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 10 mV
Current source: 22.8 mA
Time duration: 250.6 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 571 F Measurement #6:
Capacitor initial voltage: 450 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 480 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 30 mV
Current source: 202.0 mA
Time duration: 82.0 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 552 F Measurement #7:
Capacitor initial voltage: 485 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 515 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 30 mV
Current source: 201.6 mA
Time duration: 84.8 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 570 F Measurement #8:
Capacitor initial voltage: 516 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 526 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 10 mV
Current source: 22.7 mA
Time duration: 263.0 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 597 F Measurement #9:
Capacitor initial voltage: 527 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 537 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 10 mV
Current source: 22.7 mA
Time duration: 262.5 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 596 F Measurement #10:
Capacitor initial voltage: 540 mV
Capacitor final voltage:570 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 30 mV
Current source: 204.0 mA
Time duration: 83.0 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 564 F Measurement #11:
Capacitor initial voltage: 580 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 610 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 30 mV
Current source: 203.7 mA
Time duration: 85.85 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 583 F Measurement #12:
Capacitor initial voltage: 615 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 645 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 30 mV
Current source: 203.1 mA
Time duration: 87.9 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 595 F Measurement #13:
Capacitor initial voltage: 650 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 680 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 30 mV
Current source: 202.9 mA
Time duration: 87.6 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 592 F Measurement #14:
Capacitor initial voltage: 685 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 775 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 90 mV
Current source: 202.6 mA
Time duration: 272.2 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 613 F
comment: Higher ultracap internal temperature due to higher “Capacitor voltage increase.” Measurement #15:
Capacitor initial voltage: 775 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 785 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 10 mV
Current source: 22.4 mA
Time duration: 334.8 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 750 F
comment: Higher ultracap internal temperature due to previous measurement. Measurement #16:
Capacitor initial voltage: 785 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 795 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 10 mV
Current source: 44.9 mA
Time duration: 148.7 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 668 F Measurement #17:
Capacitor initial voltage: 795 mV
Capacitor final voltage: 798 mV
Capacitor voltage increase: 3 mV
Current source: 201.2 mA
Time duration: 8.7 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 583 F It was becoming obvious to me that the ultracaps internal temperature was increasing the capacitance, which is why I decided to make measurement #14 a long term high current experiment, 90mV increase, which as expected increased the capacitance significantly. This was followed by measurement #15, a low current experiment, and even though this was only a 10mV increase (low energy addition, and long duration = more time to cool down due to thermal conductivity), the results show high capacitance, 750F. That might not seem possible because the rated capacitance is 650F, but lets remember that the datasheet specs are for a certain temperature. Since it seems apparent that higher internal capacitance temperature increases the capacitance, it would be better to conduct shorting charging periods. Also, the “Capacitance voltage increase” for the higher current charging measurements should be the same as the lower current charging measurements. This will probably result in even further capacitance differences between high & low charging current. What I would like to do for the next line of measurements is to conduct short charge times, and the high current charging measurements should have the voltage increase as the low temperature. That should make the caps internal temperature closer between both measurements. Also, the capacitor should rest for at least 1 hour to cool down the capacitor. Not that they getting that warm, mind you, but it appears that even a small increase in temperature makes a significant difference in capacitance. It is expected that the difference in capacitance will be even more pronounced.
I have to admit, these capacitors are puzzling!
Capacitor voltage increase: 10 mV
Today the Maxwell boostcap BCAP0650 arrived, so I did a few quick tests. I’m a bit puzzled over the results. More tests are required to say for certain, but here’s the data from two measurements, Measurement #1:
Description: How long it takes to charge the BCAP0650.
Capacitor initial voltage: 210mV
Capacitor final voltage: 220mV
Current source: 199 mA
Time duration: 26.9 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 535 F Measurement #2:
Description: How long it takes to charge the BCAP0650.
Capacitor initial voltage: 410mV
Capacitor final voltage: 420mV
Current source: 42.1 mA
Time duration: 150 sec
=======
Calculated capacitance = 632 F Although inconclusive, could this suggest that bcap requires *less* energy to charge when *higher* current is used? If confirmed, then it appears the bcap behaves as if it has less capacitance when high current is used. When the bcap was charged at 199mA, the capacitance was 535F. So if we place a load across the bcap and drain it at 42.1mA, would it have 632F? If true, then it indicates excess energy. Tomorrow I’ll do the other experiments to know for certain. It’s probably nothing, and easily explained, but I thought this was interesting nonetheless. Tomorrow we’ll know for certain.
A few replies to someone who has made false statements on the topic of Global Warming, The earth has had heating and cooling periods through out it’s history. Funny that the real data shows a cooling since the industrial revolution of some 1.01 degrees.
The funny thing is that anyone can make a claim on a forum, but fortunately WikiPedia requires valid references for claims, and according the WikiPedia there is a clear global warming trend, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png and the above page graph is also shown in the WikiPedia main page on “Global Warming” –> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming I’ll address your other *claims* in further posts.
Also, Polar Bears do not drown, they can swim for over 80 miles so that bear in the water in Al’s video did not drown.
That’s misrepresenting the truth. The video clearly shows a *baby* polar bear being left by the mother due to the melting. Can you please clearly state the glaciers in totality are not melting? Paul
Quote Also, CO2 is not a poison gas as the US EPA now says it is.
Please show a valid reference as WikiPedia requires for the sake of being scientific.
Paul
Quote Al Gore’s, and others, “documentaries” showing the glaciers calving as evidence of global warming. Funny thing about this is that glaciers do calve BUT only when they are advancing due to a cooling trend as in a coming ice age. Glaciers do NOT calve when they melt, they just melt. This is simple earth science that anyone who can read can find out for themselves.
Are you trying to say that glaciers are not retreating and thinning? That is simply not true. Quote from WikiPedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png 
“This figure shows the average rate of thickness change in mountain glaciers around the world. This information, known as the glaciological mass balance, is found by measuring the annual snow accumulation and subtracting surface ablation driven by melting, sublimation, or wind erosion. These measurements do not account for thinning associated with iceberg calving, flow related thinning, or subglacial erosion. All values are corrected for variations in snow and firn density and expressed in meters of water equivalent (Dyurgerov 2002). Measurements are shown as both the annual average thickness change and the accumulated change during the fifty years of measurements presented. Years with a net increase in glacier thickness are plotted upwards and in red; years with a net decrease in glacier thickness (i.e. positive thinning) are plotted downward and in blue. Only three years in the last 50 have experienced thickening in the average. Systematic measurements of glacier thinning began in the 1940s, but fewer than 15 sites had been measured each year until the late 1950s. Since then more than 100 sites have contributed to the average in some years (Dyurgerov 2002, Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Error bars indicate the standard error in the mean. Other observations, based on glacier length records, suggest that glacier retreat has occurred nearly continuously since the early 1800s and the end of the little ice age, but variations in rate have occurred, including a significant acceleration during the twentieth century that is believed to have been a response to global warming (Oerlemans 2005). Data
These measurements are described in Dyurgerov (2002), updated in Dyurgerov and Meier (2005), and archived at the World Glacier Monitoring Service at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. [1]
[2] (ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G10002/)”
Quote We do need the truth and all you have to do is read a little bit on your own to see that this is nothing more than a world wide scam in a very large power grab.
You’ve made a lot of false claims that would never stand at WikiPedia due to the strict WikiPedia policy of requiring facts & valid references. Sir, I believe you have it backwards. The motive is to hush the facts about Global Warming for the sake of the economy, and that it is a sick act. To actually place ones wallet ($$$) & luxuries over all of the other beautiful species & life on this planet is very sad. Paul
Quote A video documentary team was aboard a cruise ship last week on a cruise down in the south pacific waters to document the terrors of global warming. Well, that cruise ship got stuck in the frozen sea and, they said it will take about a week or more for icebreakers to set them free again. Also note that this is the summer time down there. Gee, I hate that for them.
No reply necessary since you made no claim. Your humor on their misfortune is noted. Paul
A user by the name of gadgetmall at overunity.com has made some huge claims. He claims his modified Joule Thief circuit can make a AA battery fully charge a 650F Maxwell boostcap, where the AA battery voltage only drops by some microvolts. So I ordered one 650F Maxwell boostcap, $30 + $9 S&H. When the ultracapacitor arrives, I’ll build his circuit to see the results. I’m not holding my breath, but it’s all good because I’ve wanted to buy one of these capacitors anyways.
Phil Hardcastle has sent me some emails about an invention called the Curlitron. I spent some time analyzing the claim, and came up with some simple experiments to verify the claim. Method of testing the CurlitronIf you have a variable voltage source, and a proper meter, then the following experiment would cost ~ $2 in parts. Take a long *bare* copper wire, 36 Gauge (0.005″ or 5 mils diameter), that is inside an electrical shield such as an enclosed metal chassis. Produce 0.25 amps of DC current through the wire, and measure the DC voltage across the wire that the 0.25 amps produces. This will produce a magnetic field of 8 Gauss at the bare copper wires surface. According to my understanding of the theory, a certain amount of electrons will momentarily emit from the bare copper wire surface due to ambient thermal energy. Such electrons will have a net force in a one direction along the wire due to the magnetic field that the current produces. This will produce a net force along the wire. The end result is that there would be two voltage sources on the wire, one from our voltage source, and the other caused by the Curlitron effect. The second part of the experiment is the control experiment. Coat the bare copper wire with an electrical insulator, such as hair spray. The hair spray will prevent most of the electrons escaping the copper, thus eliminating the Curlitron effect. Produce 0.25 amps through the coated wire, and measure the voltage produced across the coated wire. Compare the control experiment with the Curlitron experiment. According to the theory, there should be a different between the experiments. Before doing the above experiment, I need to do some rough calculations to get an idea how much DC voltage 8 Gauss will produce such a wire in the air per foot. This will give an idea how sensitive the voltage meter needs to be for a given wire length. Here’s a FEMM snapshot of the magnetic field around a 5 mils diameter copper wire producing 0.25 amps, 
Here’s a FEMM graph snapshot of the magnetic field, 
The red area is the copper wire.
How this could work, according to theory:The following animation shows a microscopic atomic view of a charge momentarily escaping the copper metal surface, 
Next, when a magnetic field is applied, where the field is aligned perpendicular to your computer screen, the charge will behave as the following animation depicts, This results in the charge being moved toward the left caused by the magnetic field. The energy does *not* come from the magnetic field. The magnetic field merely rectifies the charges kinetic energy, which is ambient thermal energy.
I just learned, a bit late mind you, that the Steorn forum is closed. So you might be interested in learning who won the “Last poster wins” thread. Thanks to Google cache, we can see that 007 won!  
Well, it’s getting interesting now. It appears Steorn is getting ready to announce something. At last, we’ll soon know what Steorn says, and the truth will be known, hopefully soon. [Added: After the Steorn forum was completely cleared, Sean made a post, which says "Please note that the Steorn public forum has been closed. The forum will return at some point in the future. Regards,Sean" So the forum will come back.]
I just bought a quantity of 3 Thermoelectric coolers, model CP1-12710, claimed by seller to have a max power of 168 watts, but realistically it’s probably closer to 110 watts. Either way it will create a layer of ice on the plate within one minute. These coolers will be used in temperature controlled piezo experiments, since piezos are extremely sensitive to temperature changes. For example, the long term ~ 1 month experiment where my Radio Shack piezo, 273-073, produced ~ 10pA non-stop had over 2 feet diameter of thermal insulation to decrease temperature changes. The reason I had to put so much insulation is because the current produced by the passive piezo fluctuated throughout the day due to changes in ambient temperature. Note, the piezo never stopped producing the 10pA. Rather I had to stop the experiment to do other experiments.
Email to an academic scientist. Date: 11/5/2009 2:44 PM Here are the new piezo array measurements. The amount of time for the 1.0uF to increase 1mV, 16.00 seconds
18.12
22.32
23.69
28.22
32.10
34.59
39.32
47.40
1:09.47 (1 minute & 9.47 seconds)
1:25.69
1:35.34
1:44.15 The 1st one, 16 seconds is 62.3pA. The last one, 1:44.15 is 9.6pA. I stopped in the middle of the next measurement because it was a lot longer, so it was dying! What you see up there is probably just stored up charge. The current is probably a lot lower than 10pA, maybe even lower than 0.1pA. Oh this is so annoying because it takes so darn long for these things to recover from being disturbed. Last night the piezo array was placed completely inside the metal chassis & covered, hoping that would make them cover faster, but it didn’t seem to do it so far. What I’m seeing is that piezos are a lot tougher than diodes, but they can be disturbed just like diodes. And once the piezo is disturbed, they don’t seem to recover any faster than diodes, but we’ll have to wait and see about that.
Email to an academic scientist. These email posts consist of a small percentage of the actual emails. I’m only going back 4 days to 2009/11/6, otherwise I would be here all day posting my emails. Also, I’m only posting my emails that include measurements or that have come to some conclusion as to what’s happening, etc. The following is a small section of the entire email. Date: 11/6/2009 3:58 PM Today I tested the piezo array again. It’s deader than yesterday! I think the soldering iron upset it, LOL. Also, since there are 15 of them, they are probably trying to find a happy balance. After all, if one line is producing more DC voltage, then there will be DC current. The only way they will not discharge on each other is to all be producing the same voltage. Ah, that’s a very old theory of mine, that paralleling elements become more disturbed, and hence the reason they do not produce more current. Who knows. The 10pA is still a mystery.
Email to an academic scientist: Date: 11/9/2009 10:55 AM BTW, a few days ago I added a nanocrystalline & amorphous magnetic toroid core with ~ 10 turns (4mH) in-series with the electrometer input. This should help decrease the high current spikes caused from contact voltages. I can’t say for certain, but IMO this 4mH inductor has no more than 10fF because it uses wire with thick plastic insulation, so practically no capacitance. Contacts can occur in ~ a microsecond, down to 100ns, but that’s not a sine wave, so the spike includes appreciable high frequencies. At 1GHz the 4mH is 25Mohm, and the capacitance is 16Kohm. So 16Kohms is a lot lower than it would normally be, which is sub-ohms. Lets give it 0.1ohms, which means the 1GHz current is 160,000 times less. At 100MHz L=2.5MHz, and C=160Kohm, for a total of 1.6 million times less current. At 10MHz L=250KHz, C=1.6MHz, for a total of 2.5 million times less current. At 1MHz L=25KHz, C=16MHz, for a total of 250,000 times less current. At 100KHz L=2.5KHz, C=160MHz, for a total of 25,000 times less current. As you can see, this inductor will greatly help decrease current spikes caused by contact voltages, which will offer less disturbance to the piezo or diode. It’s not required, but IMO will help. I’ll let you know if I notice any obvious and significant decrease in disturbance.
Email to an academic scientist, Date: 11/9/2009 11:26 AM Aluminium nitride has piezoelectric properties, and is not that expensive as compared to Barium titanate or PZT, but Aluminium nitride has low Er, 8.8, while the other two mentioned materials have Er of ~ 1000. How well would a piezo made of Aluminium nitride perform?
Lately I have not been blogging, mostly because I’m working with academic scientists, and it takes time to make these post. The last paragraph of my following email contains numerous methods to build a microscopic piezo array that could produce usable amounts of power, right now with present technology. Here’s an interesting email. Date: 11/9/2009 11:20 AM I just made some measurements on the piezo array. This is showing something very odd, unless these piezos are still disturbed. To minimize disturbance, I measure only one row of the three. So I measured the voltage from 5 piezos. One piezo was 4.9 volts. Another was 2.6 volts. Total voltage is ~ 7.5 volts, which is close to what it started out being, which was 7.9 volts. I took very quick & dirty measurements, definitely not accurate so as not to disturb, so it could easily be ± 1 volt total. And the rest were considered dead; i.e., less than 20mV. At this point I don’t bother trying to get exact measurements, and if it’s low voltage then I quickly go on to the next piezo. I use a 1.4V battery in series on the electrometer input so I can get measurements above 4.37 volts. Anyhow, there seems to be no change so far in that there seems to be a few semi-alive piezos, and the rest are dead. If this is the way they’re going to stay, then it appears they are disturbing each other, or whatever that is causing the DC voltage somehow knows they are connected to each other. According to Johnson noise equations, the way I have this array connect does not decrease the Johnson noise, and actually increases it. Direct paralleling decreases Johnson noise, but this an array of first 5 in-series, and then 3 of those lines are in parallel. So the disturbance can’t be due to any decrease in Johnson noise. The only theory left to explain this disturbance is an old theory, which is based on DC current flow between the lines because the DC voltage of each line fluctuates over time, thus producing current between the lines. This of course would be AC current, and maybe this AC current makes the piezos more disturbed. This is so disappointing so far. Why are there so many piezos that “dead!?” At this point I’d have to say it’s due to the old theory, which is AC current flowing between the lines. If this is true, then it seems that more piezos, even with this configuration, still equals the same DC power, which means we cannot aggregate the power with multiple units. There’s a way, but what it is? That being said, it is very interesting, amazing, watching this, actually witnessing these dead piezos. I mean, they are deader than a door nail. Fascinating! There are a lot of obvious experiments. One of many is to place a large resistor between each line, say 10Gohms. Maybe that will significantly decrease the disturbance, but that means we can’t capture a lot of the stored energy. So far the only method is to disconnect all of the lines, and then periodically connect them to capture the net energy. On a microscopic scale there are a lot of ways of doing this. For example, using microscopic magnetic switches. So when the micro magnetic switch is in a magnetic field it closes. Then every so often turn on an electromagnet to close all of the switches to collect the energy. Another way is to use electrostatic switches. Another way is to use temperature switches such that when the temperature increase the switch expands and thus closes. Another way could be through vibrations (standing waves), such that the vibrations cause the switches to close. Another way could be photoresistivity, if we can find material that has enough off resistance. Lots of ways, but this sounds expensive to make. Maybe we could make a macro scale prototype, and if it works well enough, then your University could make a micro scale unit. Wouldn’t that be amazing, an actual “free energy” machine !!!!
Ha ha, I just learned a new word today, Pseudoskeptics! I love it!
Lots of experiments lately. I built a piezo array consisting of 5 in-series, and then made 3 of those lines, for a total of 15 piezos. After the piezos had settled for awhile, the voltages were tested on *each* piezo. One piezo was producing 5.5 volts.
|
Loading ...
