On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:20:47 PM UTC-5, William Crowell wrote:
> > today in the LA Times:
> >
> > https://news.yahoo.com/abcarian-persuade-willfully-unvaccinated-lives-110533795.html
> I don't see much difference between that and laws requiring people to wear pants in public, but at least public nudity doesn't result in unknowingly getting infected with a virus.

Since you're a queer, you already have every sexually transmitted virus known to man-kind.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 9:37:27 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:26:56 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > As I said, with every posting you get a better comic routine. Even though the US data which is by far the most reliable shows a great deal more deaths via
> > reaction to the vaccines you prefer the poor international data.
> No, stoopid, I suggested turning the international data OFF. Learn to read.
> > I don't give a shit what people are claiming is causing the deaths - they aren't medical people.
> Correct, and the medical researchers are the ones claiming it's safe and effective - still not doing much to help your cause skippy....
> > But the death rates within 30 days of vaccinations cannot be hidden.
> No one is hiding them.
> > Oh, wait, you can simply deny that they occurred and they disappear off of the face of the Earth. Fine -
> Nope, I willing share all data from VAERS, the CDC, the WHO, across all demographics. Including data for deaths within 30 days. None of that data supports your claim.
> > isn't it time you have another booster to save you from that deadly Omicron that has a 1 on 53,000 chance of killing you, if you have one or more serious comorbidities
> Since I don't have any comorbidities, I don't have much to worry about.
> > whereas if you're out in a thunder storm you have a 1 in 15,000 chance of being killed by lightning?
> and, wrong again, as usual https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata.html
> > I think that it is time that you start another clown show for the readers who are so susceptible to your ignorance.
> You're the one failing to support any claims, being proven wrong at every turn, and getting laughed at. We're laughing _at_ you tommy, not with you.
Your comedy routine is getting old. Do anything you want but don't tell me what I must do. Slimy cowards hiding behind anonymity and distance grow tiresome rapidly and you've overstayed your welcome..

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 1:05:27 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:20:47 PM UTC-5, William Crowell wrote:
> > > today in the LA Times:
> > >
> > > https://news.yahoo.com/abcarian-persuade-willfully-unvaccinated-lives-110533795.html
> > I don't see much difference between that and laws requiring people to wear pants in public, but at least public nudity doesn't result in unknowingly getting infected with a virus.
> Since you're a queer, you already have every sexually transmitted virus known to man-kind.
You can project your homosexual fantasies on me all you want, you can't have me.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 1:07:44 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 9:37:27 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:26:56 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > As I said, with every posting you get a better comic routine. Even though the US data which is by far the most reliable shows a great deal more deaths via
> > > reaction to the vaccines you prefer the poor international data.
> > No, stoopid, I suggested turning the international data OFF. Learn to read.
> > > I don't give a shit what people are claiming is causing the deaths - they aren't medical people.
> > Correct, and the medical researchers are the ones claiming it's safe and effective - still not doing much to help your cause skippy....
> > > But the death rates within 30 days of vaccinations cannot be hidden.
> > No one is hiding them.
> > > Oh, wait, you can simply deny that they occurred and they disappear off of the face of the Earth. Fine -
> > Nope, I willing share all data from VAERS, the CDC, the WHO, across all demographics. Including data for deaths within 30 days. None of that data supports your claim.
> > > isn't it time you have another booster to save you from that deadly Omicron that has a 1 on 53,000 chance of killing you, if you have one or more serious comorbidities
> > Since I don't have any comorbidities, I don't have much to worry about.
> > > whereas if you're out in a thunder storm you have a 1 in 15,000 chance of being killed by lightning?
> > and, wrong again, as usual https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata.html
> > > I think that it is time that you start another clown show for the readers who are so susceptible to your ignorance.
> > You're the one failing to support any claims, being proven wrong at every turn, and getting laughed at. We're laughing _at_ you tommy, not with you.
> Your comedy routine is getting old. Do anything you want but don't tell me what I must do. Slimy cowards hiding behind anonymity and distance grow tiresome rapidly and you've overstayed your welcome..

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 1:07:44 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 9:37:27 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:26:56 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > As I said, with every posting you get a better comic routine. Even though the US data which is by far the most reliable shows a great deal more deaths via
> > > reaction to the vaccines you prefer the poor international data.
> > No, stoopid, I suggested turning the international data OFF. Learn to read.
> > > I don't give a shit what people are claiming is causing the deaths - they aren't medical people.
> > Correct, and the medical researchers are the ones claiming it's safe and effective - still not doing much to help your cause skippy....
> > > But the death rates within 30 days of vaccinations cannot be hidden.
> > No one is hiding them.
> > > Oh, wait, you can simply deny that they occurred and they disappear off of the face of the Earth. Fine -
> > Nope, I willing share all data from VAERS, the CDC, the WHO, across all demographics. Including data for deaths within 30 days. None of that data supports your claim.
> > > isn't it time you have another booster to save you from that deadly Omicron that has a 1 on 53,000 chance of killing you, if you have one or more serious comorbidities
> > Since I don't have any comorbidities, I don't have much to worry about.
> > > whereas if you're out in a thunder storm you have a 1 in 15,000 chance of being killed by lightning?
> > and, wrong again, as usual https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata.html
> > > I think that it is time that you start another clown show for the readers who are so susceptible to your ignorance.
> > You're the one failing to support any claims, being proven wrong at every turn, and getting laughed at. We're laughing _at_ you tommy, not with you.
>
> Your comedy routine is getting old.
feel free to change the channel.

> Do anything you want but don't tell me what I must do
shut the fuck up.

> Slimy cowards hiding behind anonymity and distance grow tiresome rapidly
And yet you not only keep responding, you keep referring to me in threads I'm not participating in.

> and you've overstayed your welcome..
That's what your parents said the day after you were born

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 05:02:58 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>However, in the _real_ world, there is no PWM method for testing cables. it's done with simple DC continuity and TDR. More accurate characterization is done with swept-frequency analysis, and RF/microwave cables are tested with S-parameter equipment to determine insertion loss, VSWR, and LC impedance vectors.

You may want to add to your cable test list a high voltage insulation
leakage test using a Megger or megger clone:
<https://us.megger.com/products/cable-fault,-test-and-diagnostics>
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/Megger/Megger-Major.jpg>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=megger&tbm=isch>
I've seen cables, where it was difficult to make a determination using
a TDR or VNA because the cable was rather lossy due to water incursion
or was so long that reflections could barely be seen. A high voltage
leakage test usually settled the issue. While my crank type Megger
uses 2,500VDC, there are models that use high voltage DC pulses
(mostly to save on battery power).

Note: I don't use mine much for testing RF coax cables. Mostly, I
use it for testing insulation breakdown on motors and generators.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 10:57:45 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 1:07:44 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 9:37:27 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:26:56 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > As I said, with every posting you get a better comic routine. Even though the US data which is by far the most reliable shows a great deal more deaths via
> > > > reaction to the vaccines you prefer the poor international data.
> > > No, stoopid, I suggested turning the international data OFF. Learn to read.
> > > > I don't give a shit what people are claiming is causing the deaths - they aren't medical people.
> > > Correct, and the medical researchers are the ones claiming it's safe and effective - still not doing much to help your cause skippy....
> > > > But the death rates within 30 days of vaccinations cannot be hidden.
> > > No one is hiding them.
> > > > Oh, wait, you can simply deny that they occurred and they disappear off of the face of the Earth. Fine -
> > > Nope, I willing share all data from VAERS, the CDC, the WHO, across all demographics. Including data for deaths within 30 days. None of that data supports your claim.
> > > > isn't it time you have another booster to save you from that deadly Omicron that has a 1 on 53,000 chance of killing you, if you have one or more serious comorbidities
> > > Since I don't have any comorbidities, I don't have much to worry about.
> > > > whereas if you're out in a thunder storm you have a 1 in 15,000 chance of being killed by lightning?
> > > and, wrong again, as usual https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata.html
> > > > I think that it is time that you start another clown show for the readers who are so susceptible to your ignorance.
> > > You're the one failing to support any claims, being proven wrong at every turn, and getting laughed at. We're laughing _at_ you tommy, not with you.
> >
> > Your comedy routine is getting old.
> feel free to change the channel.
> > Do anything you want but don't tell me what I must do
> shut the fuck up.
> > Slimy cowards hiding behind anonymity and distance grow tiresome rapidly
> And yet you not only keep responding, you keep referring to me in threads I'm not participating in.
> > and you've overstayed your welcome..
> That's what your parents said the day after you were born

More of the outstanding bravery of anonymity and distance. Bravo.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 11:17:32 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 05:02:58 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >However, in the _real_ world, there is no PWM method for testing cables. it's done with simple DC continuity and TDR. More accurate characterization is done with swept-frequency analysis, and RF/microwave cables are tested with S-parameter equipment to determine insertion loss, VSWR, and LC impedance vectors.
> You may want to add to your cable test list a high voltage insulation
> leakage test using a Megger or megger clone:
> <https://us.megger.com/products/cable-fault,-test-and-diagnostics>
> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/Megger/Megger-Major.jpg>
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=megger&tbm=isch>
> I've seen cables, where it was difficult to make a determination using
> a TDR or VNA because the cable was rather lossy due to water incursion
> or was so long that reflections could barely be seen. A high voltage
> leakage test usually settled the issue. While my crank type Megger
> uses 2,500VDC, there are models that use high voltage DC pulses
> (mostly to save on battery power).
>
> Note: I don't use mine much for testing RF coax cables. Mostly, I
> use it for testing insulation breakdown on motors and generators.

A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation. PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring. Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:32:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation.

That's actually true[1] but is like saying testing an individual
component only tests the component, not the device. The insulation is
just one part of the coaxial cable and testing only the insulation is
insufficient to declare that the coaxial cable is working properly.

One thing that the RF and pulse based tests cannot easily check in a
coaxial cable is leakage through the dielectric between the center
conductor and the shield. You can't see millions of ohms with an
instrument designed to work at 50 ohms. That's what the Megger does.
Try to think of checking the dielectric as an additional test, not the
sole test used to declare the cable as good.

>PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring. Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.

I'm all ears. Show me how you use PWM (pulse width modulation) to
test cables, shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. If
you can't explain it, a URL pointing to the method will suffice. Your
NoBull prize awaits you.

[1] Actually, not true. The insulation is normally the outer
insulating jacket of the coaxial cable. The inner insulated layer is
called the dielectric, even when it is mostly air as in Heliax:
<https://images-scms.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/1528211472-422_catalog.jpg>
For high voltage, it can also be a liquid such as alkylbenze or
polybutene oil.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:07:31 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>"VAERS confirmed over 6000 additional COVID-19 vaccine death reports" https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-related-fatalities-updated

We've been here before:
<https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html>
"While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports
alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed
to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information
that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In
large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are
subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data
can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be
interpreted with these limitations in mind."

Short version: VAERS data is crowd sourced and not reliable. Don't
use it to establish either Covid-19 causes or effects.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:28:43 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:07:31 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"VAERS confirmed over 6000 additional COVID-19 vaccine death reports" https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-related-fatalities-updated
>
>We've been here before:
><https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html>
>"While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports
>alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed
>to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information
>that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In
>large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are
>subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data
>can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be
>interpreted with these limitations in mind."
>
>Short version: VAERS data is crowd sourced and not reliable. Don't
>use it to establish either Covid-19 causes or effects.

Jeff, you are talking to a chap that suffers from the delusion that he
knows everything. A recognized mental condition that can, in some
cases be treated and usually defined as:

A mental condition in which people have an
inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive
attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of
empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a
fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism and
frequently respond to what they perceive as criticism with insults and
threats of physical assault."

So, no matter what evidence is offered he can only continue to insist
that HE is correct and the rest of the world is wrong.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 3:28:50 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:07:31 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"VAERS confirmed over 6000 additional COVID-19 vaccine death reports" https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-related-fatalities-updated
> We've been here before:
> <https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html>
> "While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports
> alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed
> to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information
> that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In
> large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are
> subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data
> can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be
> interpreted with these limitations in mind."
>
> Short version: VAERS data is crowd sourced and not reliable. Don't
> use it to establish either Covid-19 causes or effects.

Well, I think that since you are so more than willing to believe the same government offices that are pushing vaccinations to assume that "it isn't necessarily correct to blame the vaccines if a person mysteriously dies within 28 days of being vaccinated". Of course it isn't. But what are the odds? Why do you have an almost sexual need to oppose me? As I've shown, covid-19 is harmless except in extremely rare circumstances and to people with serious comorbidities that were about the take their lives soon. So why don't you run down and get a booster that has been shown NOT to keep you from getting ill, not to improve your chances and not to prevent the spreading of the illness by vaccinated people. Seems like the idea vaccine to me.

I guess acting like a nitwit runs in your family.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 3:20:29 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:32:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation.
> That's actually true[1] but is like saying testing an individual
> component only tests the component, not the device. The insulation is
> just one part of the coaxial cable and testing only the insulation is
> insufficient to declare that the coaxial cable is working properly.
>
> One thing that the RF and pulse based tests cannot easily check in a
> coaxial cable is leakage through the dielectric between the center
> conductor and the shield. You can't see millions of ohms with an
> instrument designed to work at 50 ohms. That's what the Megger does.
> Try to think of checking the dielectric as an additional test, not the
> sole test used to declare the cable as good.
> >PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring. Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.
> I'm all ears. Show me how you use PWM (pulse width modulation) to
> test cables, shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. If
> you can't explain it, a URL pointing to the method will suffice. Your
> NoBull prize awaits you.
>
>
> [1] Actually, not true. The insulation is normally the outer
> insulating jacket of the coaxial cable. The inner insulated layer is
> called the dielectric, even when it is mostly air as in Heliax:
> <https://images-scms.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/1528211472-422_catalog.jpg>
> For high voltage, it can also be a liquid such as alkylbenze or
> polybutene oil.

I'm sure that you can continue playing your game of ignorance. So go ahead and play with yourself.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 17:33:58 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 3:28:50 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:07:31 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"VAERS confirmed over 6000 additional COVID-19 vaccine death reports" https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-related-fatalities-updated
>> We've been here before:
>> <https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html>
>> "While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports
>> alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed
>> to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information
>> that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In
>> large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are
>> subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data
>> can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be
>> interpreted with these limitations in mind."
>>
>> Short version: VAERS data is crowd sourced and not reliable. Don't
>> use it to establish either Covid-19 causes or effects.
>
>Well, I think that since you are so more than willing to believe the same government offices that are pushing vaccinations to assume that "it isn't necessarily correct to blame the vaccines if a person mysteriously dies within 28 days of being vaccinated". Of course it isn't. But what are the odds? Why do you have an almost sexual need to oppose me? As I've shown, covid-19 is harmless except in extremely rare circumstances and to people with serious comorbidities that were about the take their lives soon. So why don't you run down and get a booster that has been shown NOT to keep you from getting ill, not to improve your chances and not to prevent the spreading of the illness by vaccinated people. Seems like the idea vaccine to me.
>
>I guess acting like a nitwit runs in your family.

Well, we don't know whether psychosis runs in your family but you
certainly flaunt the symptoms:

"A mental condition in which people have an
inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive
attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of
empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a
fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism and
frequently respond to what they perceive as criticism with insults and
threats of physical assault."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 17:35:50 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 3:20:29 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:32:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation.
>> That's actually true[1] but is like saying testing an individual
>> component only tests the component, not the device. The insulation is
>> just one part of the coaxial cable and testing only the insulation is
>> insufficient to declare that the coaxial cable is working properly.
>>
>> One thing that the RF and pulse based tests cannot easily check in a
>> coaxial cable is leakage through the dielectric between the center
>> conductor and the shield. You can't see millions of ohms with an
>> instrument designed to work at 50 ohms. That's what the Megger does.
>> Try to think of checking the dielectric as an additional test, not the
>> sole test used to declare the cable as good.
>> >PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring. Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.
>> I'm all ears. Show me how you use PWM (pulse width modulation) to
>> test cables, shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. If
>> you can't explain it, a URL pointing to the method will suffice. Your
>> NoBull prize awaits you.
>>
>>
>> [1] Actually, not true. The insulation is normally the outer
>> insulating jacket of the coaxial cable. The inner insulated layer is
>> called the dielectric, even when it is mostly air as in Heliax:
>> <https://images-scms.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/1528211472-422_catalog.jpg>
>> For high voltage, it can also be a liquid such as alkylbenze or
>> polybutene oil.
>
>I'm sure that you can continue playing your game of ignorance. So go ahead and play with yourself.

Yes Sir! And here's our very own Tommy flaunting his dementia:

" an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for
excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack
of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies
a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism and
frequently respond to what they perceive as criticism with insults and
threats of physical assault."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:32:13 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 11:17:32 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 05:02:58 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> > <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >However, in the _real_ world, there is no PWM method for testing cables. it's done with simple DC continuity and TDR. More accurate characterization is done with swept-frequency analysis, and RF/microwave cables are tested with S-parameter equipment to determine insertion loss, VSWR, and LC impedance vectors.
> > You may want to add to your cable test list a high voltage insulation
> > leakage test using a Megger or megger clone:
> > <https://us.megger.com/products/cable-fault,-test-and-diagnostics>
> > <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/Megger/Megger-Major.jpg>
> > <https://www.google.com/search?q=megger&tbm=isch>
> > I've seen cables, where it was difficult to make a determination using
> > a TDR or VNA because the cable was rather lossy due to water incursion
> > or was so long that reflections could barely be seen. A high voltage
> > leakage test usually settled the issue. While my crank type Megger
> > uses 2,500VDC, there are models that use high voltage DC pulses
> > (mostly to save on battery power).
> >
> > Note: I don't use mine much for testing RF coax cables. Mostly, I
> > use it for testing insulation breakdown on motors and generators.
>
> A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation.

Which is part of a cable. It can be used to diagnose a cable used for a high voltage application.

> PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring.

1) There is no such thing as a PWM cable test. To this point you haven't posted any link to any test equipment or testing configuration for PWM cable testing, which is because it doesn't exist. All we are asking is for you to post such a link, any link. Claiming that you won't do it because you don't think we would understand it is just proof you're pulling it out of your ass like you do everything else.

2) Cables don't cause frequency shift. Not even a bad cable can cause a frequency shift. Worst case is that you might see phasing issue due an impedance mismatch (hence the application of S-parameter testing). Helpful hint - Phase shift is _not_ the same thing as frequency shift (see FM vs PM, and FSK vs PSK). I have a wide background in RF/Microwave sparky, you're way out of your league here (well, not just here actually, but anywhere)

3) Testing for cable defects using reflections is done by using TDR, _especially_ in long-distance applications.

> Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.

PWM isn't any more used for cable testing than "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics. Show me a link, _any_ link.
Making a claim that PWM is used for cable testing (or that 'light lines" is a common term for fiber optics) is simply bullshit unless you can show a specific application or supporting information.
If it were _commonly_ used the major test equipment manufacturers (Fluke, Keysight (formerly Agilent formerly HP)) would make equipment for it or discuss PWM cable testing applications. They don't.
In fact searching knowledge bases for PWM cable testing, from the Keysight the only return is:

https://edadocs.software.keysight.com/kkbopen/for-cable-testing-should-i-use-a-time-domain-reflectometer-tdr-a-network-analyzer-or-both-620139527.html
If PWM were a"commonly used" method, it would be discussed. PWM isn't mentioned.

from the Fluke knowledge base the only return
https://www.fluke.com/en-us/learn/blog/power-quality/cable-length-vfd-motors
"The output of the frequency inverter is characterized by a PWM signal" - which has no application in directly diagnosing cable integrity.

Face it shitferbrains - you're exposed. You have no clue what you're talking about. PWM isn't any more used for cable testing than "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics.
Prove us wrong sparky. Show a link - any information at all - that supports the claim that PWM is used for cable testing (or that "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics).

(predicted response, ad hominem + change of subject).

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 10:03:38 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 17:35:50 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 3:20:29 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:32:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation.
> >> That's actually true[1] but is like saying testing an individual
> >> component only tests the component, not the device. The insulation is
> >> just one part of the coaxial cable and testing only the insulation is
> >> insufficient to declare that the coaxial cable is working properly.
> >>
> >> One thing that the RF and pulse based tests cannot easily check in a
> >> coaxial cable is leakage through the dielectric between the center
> >> conductor and the shield. You can't see millions of ohms with an
> >> instrument designed to work at 50 ohms. That's what the Megger does.
> >> Try to think of checking the dielectric as an additional test, not the
> >> sole test used to declare the cable as good.
> >> >PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring. Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.
> >> I'm all ears. Show me how you use PWM (pulse width modulation) to
> >> test cables, shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. If
> >> you can't explain it, a URL pointing to the method will suffice. Your
> >> NoBull prize awaits you.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] Actually, not true. The insulation is normally the outer
> >> insulating jacket of the coaxial cable. The inner insulated layer is
> >> called the dielectric, even when it is mostly air as in Heliax:
> >> <https://images-scms.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/1528211472-422_catalog.jpg>
> >> For high voltage, it can also be a liquid such as alkylbenze or
> >> polybutene oil.
> >
> >I'm sure that you can continue playing your game of ignorance. So go ahead and play with yourself.
> Yes Sir! And here's our very own Tommy flaunting his dementia:

_and_ his delusions.

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 6:53:29 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:32:13 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 11:17:32 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 05:02:58 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> > > <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >However, in the _real_ world, there is no PWM method for testing cables. it's done with simple DC continuity and TDR. More accurate characterization is done with swept-frequency analysis, and RF/microwave cables are tested with S-parameter equipment to determine insertion loss, VSWR, and LC impedance vectors.
> > > You may want to add to your cable test list a high voltage insulation
> > > leakage test using a Megger or megger clone:
> > > <https://us.megger.com/products/cable-fault,-test-and-diagnostics>
> > > <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/Megger/Megger-Major.jpg>
> > > <https://www.google.com/search?q=megger&tbm=isch>
> > > I've seen cables, where it was difficult to make a determination using
> > > a TDR or VNA because the cable was rather lossy due to water incursion
> > > or was so long that reflections could barely be seen. A high voltage
> > > leakage test usually settled the issue. While my crank type Megger
> > > uses 2,500VDC, there are models that use high voltage DC pulses
> > > (mostly to save on battery power).
> > >
> > > Note: I don't use mine much for testing RF coax cables. Mostly, I
> > > use it for testing insulation breakdown on motors and generators.
> >
> > A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation.
> Which is part of a cable. It can be used to diagnose a cable used for a high voltage application.
> > PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring.
> 1) There is no such thing as a PWM cable test. To this point you haven't posted any link to any test equipment or testing configuration for PWM cable testing, which is because it doesn't exist. All we are asking is for you to post such a link, any link. Claiming that you won't do it because you don't think we would understand it is just proof you're pulling it out of your ass like you do everything else.
>
> 2) Cables don't cause frequency shift. Not even a bad cable can cause a frequency shift. Worst case is that you might see phasing issue due an impedance mismatch (hence the application of S-parameter testing). Helpful hint - Phase shift is _not_ the same thing as frequency shift (see FM vs PM, and FSK vs PSK). I have a wide background in RF/Microwave sparky, you're way out of your league here (well, not just here actually, but anywhere)
>
> 3) Testing for cable defects using reflections is done by using TDR, _especially_ in long-distance applications.
> > Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.
> PWM isn't any more used for cable testing than "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics. Show me a link, _any_ link.
> Making a claim that PWM is used for cable testing (or that 'light lines" is a common term for fiber optics) is simply bullshit unless you can show a specific application or supporting information.
> If it were _commonly_ used the major test equipment manufacturers (Fluke, Keysight (formerly Agilent formerly HP)) would make equipment for it or discuss PWM cable testing applications. They don't.
> In fact searching knowledge bases for PWM cable testing, from the Keysight the only return is:
>
> https://edadocs.software.keysight.com/kkbopen/for-cable-testing-should-i-use-a-time-domain-reflectometer-tdr-a-network-analyzer-or-both-620139527.html
> If PWM were a"commonly used" method, it would be discussed. PWM isn't mentioned.
>
> from the Fluke knowledge base the only return
> https://www.fluke.com/en-us/learn/blog/power-quality/cable-length-vfd-motors
> "The output of the frequency inverter is characterized by a PWM signal" - which has no application in directly diagnosing cable integrity.
>
> Face it shitferbrains - you're exposed. You have no clue what you're talking about. PWM isn't any more used for cable testing than "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics.
> Prove us wrong sparky. Show a link - any information at all - that supports the claim that PWM is used for cable testing (or that "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics).
>
> (predicted response, ad hominem + change of subject).

Poor little baby cannot figure it out for himself so he needs google references from someone else to show him how. Real talent on show there Flunky. Because a little pansy like you has such a difficult time understanding what "light line" means doesn't make it anything other than what it is. Ahh, the courage of anonymity and distance. You are so obviously proud of your ignorance.

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 2:49:28 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
> "Poll Reveals Astonishing Percentage Of Democrats Support Unparalleled Covid Tyranny For Unvaccinated"
>
> According to the respected pollster Rasmussen:
> "Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."
>
> See more extracts from the report at:
> https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/01/15/rasmussen-poll-reveals-astonishing-percentage-of-democrats-support-unparalleled-covid-tyranny-for-the-unvaccinated-n2601911
>
> Andre Jute
> I was born in South Africa, where the British invented the Concentration Camp. I'm therefore familiar with the deep, generations-long societal scars such a policy would create.
>
What I find interesting is that none of the left creeps have denied that even 1% of their fellow Democrats want to deny the unvaccinated their constitutional liberty, never mind 45%, that even 1% totalitarian tendency in a supposedly mature political party is a worrying tendency and the 45% could easily be the death knell of the party (is there anyone silly enough to think city gangbangers will win a shooting war against flyover country?) and even sever the unum that used to be the strength of the US.
>
Andre Jute
No, Jeff didn't argue that the revealed totalitarian tendency didn't exist, he merely argued that some of the 45% were less passionate than all the rest in the spiteful passion of their totalitarianism.

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 10:25:08 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 6:53:29 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation.
> > Which is part of a cable. It can be used to diagnose a cable used for a high voltage application.
> > > PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring.
> > 1) There is no such thing as a PWM cable test. To this point you haven't posted any link to any test equipment or testing configuration for PWM cable testing, which is because it doesn't exist. All we are asking is for you to post such a link, any link. Claiming that you won't do it because you don't think we would understand it is just proof you're pulling it out of your ass like you do everything else.
> >
> > 2) Cables don't cause frequency shift. Not even a bad cable can cause a frequency shift. Worst case is that you might see phasing issue due an impedance mismatch (hence the application of S-parameter testing). Helpful hint - Phase shift is _not_ the same thing as frequency shift (see FM vs PM, and FSK vs PSK). I have a wide background in RF/Microwave sparky, you're way out of your league here (well, not just here actually, but anywhere)
> >
> > 3) Testing for cable defects using reflections is done by using TDR, _especially_ in long-distance applications.
> > > Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.
> > PWM isn't any more used for cable testing than "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics. Show me a link, _any_ link.
> > Making a claim that PWM is used for cable testing (or that 'light lines" is a common term for fiber optics) is simply bullshit unless you can show a specific application or supporting information.
> > If it were _commonly_ used the major test equipment manufacturers (Fluke, Keysight (formerly Agilent formerly HP)) would make equipment for it or discuss PWM cable testing applications. They don't.
> > In fact searching knowledge bases for PWM cable testing, from the Keysight the only return is:
> >
> > https://edadocs.software.keysight.com/kkbopen/for-cable-testing-should-i-use-a-time-domain-reflectometer-tdr-a-network-analyzer-or-both-620139527.html
> > If PWM were a"commonly used" method, it would be discussed. PWM isn't mentioned.
> >
> > from the Fluke knowledge base the only return
> > https://www.fluke.com/en-us/learn/blog/power-quality/cable-length-vfd-motors
> > "The output of the frequency inverter is characterized by a PWM signal" - which has no application in directly diagnosing cable integrity.
> >
> > Face it shitferbrains - you're exposed. You have no clue what you're talking about. PWM isn't any more used for cable testing than "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics.
> > Prove us wrong sparky. Show a link - any information at all - that supports the claim that PWM is used for cable testing (or that "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics).
> >
> > (predicted response, ad hominem + change of subject).
>
> Poor little baby cannot figure it out for himself so he needs google references from someone else to show him how.

Sure tommy. This is your golden opportunity. I'm claiming you're full of shit and you have no proof. Prove me wrong. Prove to everyone here how much smarter you are than everyone else by posting something (anything) that backs up your claim. You thought you could do that with links about covid deaths (which turned out to be wrong). Why would now be any different? Nope, You're such an idiot you didn't even catch the mistake I made in my last post. No, I'm not going to point it out, you're the genius who claims PWM is used for cable testing, it should be obvious to you.

> Real talent on show there Flunky.

Yup, like the talent that you can't provide a link to prove your claim? I've backed up my claim repeatedly in this discussion. All you've done is:

> Because a little pansy like you has such a difficult time understanding what "light line" means

It doesn't mean anything. You made it up. You're lying and are too much of a coward to admit it, or you would have provided a link to support it.

> doesn't make it anything other than what it is.

Correct. It's a fabrication on your part. You made it up, thinking it was true, and now that you can't back up your claim, you resort to
" (predicted response, ad hominem + change of subject)."

> Ahh, the courage of anonymity and distance. You are so obviously proud of your ignorance.

QED.
Prove me wrong, you impotent half-wit. Ignorance is claiming PWM is used for cable testing and 'light lines' = fiber optics. Only an absolute moron with the technical background of a high school drop out that got kicked out of the air force would make such a claim, then stick by it with nothing more than ad hominems for support, and be proud of that behaviour. Your mother must have been incredibly disappointed in how much of an absolute loser you turned out to be, and if she wasn't she was a pretty shitty mother. The sad thing here, is that you've somehow deluded yourself into actually believing PWM is used for cable testing and 'light lines' = fiber optics. It's no wonder you were fired from every job you've ever had. You're an absolute idiot with the moral character of a pedophile priest. Either put up, or shut the fuck up.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 07:25:07 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 6:53:29 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> (predicted response, ad hominem + change of subject).

>Poor little baby cannot figure it out for himself so he needs google references from someone else to show him how. Real talent on show there Flunky. Because a little pansy like you has such a difficult time understanding what "light line" means doesn't make it anything other than what it is. Ahh, the courage of anonymity and distance. You are so obviously proud of your ignorance.

Well, you got both ad hominem and change-o-subject. The choice of
Tom's typical replies can include:

[ ] Opening insult.
[ ] Ad hominem attack declaring the writer to be incompetent.
[ ] Random derogatory name calling (little, baby, midget, etc).
[ ] Proclamation of Tom having extensive experience in the topic.
[ ] Mis-spelled name of company where Tom allegedly gained the
experience.
[ ] Irrelevant references to Covid-19, national politics, Dr Faucci,
and current events.
[ ] Generally incorrect amazing claims.
[ ] URL allegedly substantiating the amazing claims but usually about
some other topic, from a source lacking credibility, or something
which failed a fact check.
[ ] Closing reference to something that Tom did on or to his numerous
bicycles.

Tom's rather strangely structured sentence seems to suggest that he
wants you to admit that you don't understand anything about copper and
optical transmission lines before he will produce an explanation.
Should that be the case, I will gladly sacrifice what's left of my
reputation for a small measure of entertainment value. I hereby
declare that I don't know anything about transmission lines and how
they're measured. OK Tom, now will you disclose the secret of testing
cables with PWM?

Incidentally, "light line" is what my Jr High Skool drafting
instructor called my work after I used a 4H lead instead of the usual
2H pencil.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 3:58:26 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 07:25:07 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 6:53:29 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> (predicted response, ad hominem + change of subject).
>
> >Poor little baby cannot figure it out for himself so he needs google references from someone else to show him how. Real talent on show there Flunky.. Because a little pansy like you has such a difficult time understanding what "light line" means doesn't make it anything other than what it is. Ahh, the courage of anonymity and distance. You are so obviously proud of your ignorance.
> Well, you got both ad hominem and change-o-subject. The choice of
> Tom's typical replies can include:
>
> [ ] Opening insult.
> [ ] Ad hominem attack declaring the writer to be incompetent.
> [ ] Random derogatory name calling (little, baby, midget, etc).
> [ ] Proclamation of Tom having extensive experience in the topic.
> [ ] Mis-spelled name of company where Tom allegedly gained the
> experience.
> [ ] Irrelevant references to Covid-19, national politics, Dr Faucci,
> and current events.
> [ ] Generally incorrect amazing claims.
> [ ] URL allegedly substantiating the amazing claims but usually about
> some other topic, from a source lacking credibility, or something
> which failed a fact check.
> [ ] Closing reference to something that Tom did on or to his numerous
> bicycles.

Excellent concise, and accurate summary of any tommy-response.

>
> Tom's rather strangely structured sentence seems to suggest that he
> wants you to admit that you don't understand anything about copper and
> optical transmission lines before he will produce an explanation.
> Should that be the case, I will gladly sacrifice what's left of my
> reputation for a small measure of entertainment value. I hereby
> declare that I don't know anything about transmission lines and how
> they're measured. OK Tom, now will you disclose the secret of testing
> cables with PWM?

Oh no, that will never do. All that will invoke would be a reiteration of 'I'm not going to bother posting since now you admit you won't understand'. Funny how he actually described TDR in claiming it was how PWM worked. (any link at all tommy, any link at all...)
> Incidentally, "light line" is what my Jr High Skool drafting
> instructor called my work after I used a 4H lead instead of the usual
> 2H pencil.

One thing we _do_ know is that "light lines" have nothing to do with fiber optic telecom networks (any link at all tommy, any link at all...)

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 9:57:30 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 2:49:28 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
> > "Poll Reveals Astonishing Percentage Of Democrats Support Unparalleled Covid Tyranny For Unvaccinated"
> >
> > According to the respected pollster Rasmussen:
> > "Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."
> >
> > See more extracts from the report at:
> > https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/01/15/rasmussen-poll-reveals-astonishing-percentage-of-democrats-support-unparalleled-covid-tyranny-for-the-unvaccinated-n2601911
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > I was born in South Africa, where the British invented the Concentration Camp. I'm therefore familiar with the deep, generations-long societal scars such a policy would create.
> >
> What I find interesting is that none of the left creeps have denied that even 1% of their fellow Democrats want to deny the unvaccinated their constitutional liberty, never mind 45%, that even 1% totalitarian tendency in a supposedly mature political party is a worrying tendency and the 45% could easily be the death knell of the party (is there anyone silly enough to think city gangbangers will win a shooting war against flyover country?) and even sever the unum that used to be the strength of the US.
> >
> Andre Jute
> No, Jeff didn't argue that the revealed totalitarian tendency didn't exist, he merely argued that some of the 45% were less passionate than all the rest in the spiteful passion of their totalitarianism.

I have yet to figure Jeff out. This all started with him and Frank claiming that I wasn't an engineer because I don't have a degree. Then from other comments from Jeff, it appears that HE doesn't have one. I can understand Frank's argument since he put in all of that time and money to never achieve one single thing in his life and he is so jealous of someone that did do that and yet achieved a very high degree of success that he can only deny that it actually happened. But Jeff has said that he has designed Marine radios if I understood him. That is an engineering job if not the highest connection with real science possible so why is he arguing that he doesn't have the qualifications to be an engineer so he isn't?

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 4:39:45 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> I have yet to figure Jeff out. This all started with him and Frank claiming that I wasn't an engineer

That's not where it started.

> because I don't have a degree.

That's not why.

> Then from other comments from Jeff, it appears that HE doesn't have one.
> I can understand Frank's argument since he put in all of that time and money to never achieve one single
> thing in his life and he is so jealous of someone that did do that and yet achieved a very high degree of success
> that he can only deny that it actually happened.

Never accomplished anything except assist and mentor 100s of engineering students to establish lucrative careers as working engineers, building a comfortable life with his family, and being successful enough to enjoy his retirement. Other than that, yeah, I guess he could be jealous of a high-school dropout who has never held a job for more than a year and complains incessantly about every aspect of his life, except when he's lying about making $12K a month off his investments.....or not......

> But Jeff has said that he has designed Marine radios if I understood him.
> That is an engineering job if not the highest connection with real science
> possible so why is he arguing that he doesn't have the qualifications to be an engineer so he isn't?

Did Jeff ever claim to be an engineer? I must have missed that.

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 11:03:48 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 10:25:08 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 6:53:29 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation.
> > > Which is part of a cable. It can be used to diagnose a cable used for a high voltage application.
> > > > PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring.
> > > 1) There is no such thing as a PWM cable test. To this point you haven't posted any link to any test equipment or testing configuration for PWM cable testing, which is because it doesn't exist. All we are asking is for you to post such a link, any link. Claiming that you won't do it because you don't think we would understand it is just proof you're pulling it out of your ass like you do everything else.
> > >
> > > 2) Cables don't cause frequency shift. Not even a bad cable can cause a frequency shift. Worst case is that you might see phasing issue due an impedance mismatch (hence the application of S-parameter testing). Helpful hint - Phase shift is _not_ the same thing as frequency shift (see FM vs PM, and FSK vs PSK). I have a wide background in RF/Microwave sparky, you're way out of your league here (well, not just here actually, but anywhere)
> > >
> > > 3) Testing for cable defects using reflections is done by using TDR, _especially_ in long-distance applications.
> > > > Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.
> > > PWM isn't any more used for cable testing than "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics. Show me a link, _any_ link.
> > > Making a claim that PWM is used for cable testing (or that 'light lines" is a common term for fiber optics) is simply bullshit unless you can show a specific application or supporting information.
> > > If it were _commonly_ used the major test equipment manufacturers (Fluke, Keysight (formerly Agilent formerly HP)) would make equipment for it or discuss PWM cable testing applications. They don't.
> > > In fact searching knowledge bases for PWM cable testing, from the Keysight the only return is:
> > >
> > > https://edadocs.software.keysight.com/kkbopen/for-cable-testing-should-i-use-a-time-domain-reflectometer-tdr-a-network-analyzer-or-both-620139527.html
> > > If PWM were a"commonly used" method, it would be discussed. PWM isn't mentioned.
> > >
> > > from the Fluke knowledge base the only return
> > > https://www.fluke.com/en-us/learn/blog/power-quality/cable-length-vfd-motors
> > > "The output of the frequency inverter is characterized by a PWM signal" - which has no application in directly diagnosing cable integrity.
> > >
> > > Face it shitferbrains - you're exposed. You have no clue what you're talking about. PWM isn't any more used for cable testing than "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics.
> > > Prove us wrong sparky. Show a link - any information at all - that supports the claim that PWM is used for cable testing (or that "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics).
> > >
> > > (predicted response, ad hominem + change of subject).
> >
> > Poor little baby cannot figure it out for himself so he needs google references from someone else to show him how.
> Sure tommy. This is your golden opportunity. I'm claiming you're full of shit and you have no proof. Prove me wrong. Prove to everyone here how much smarter you are than everyone else by posting something (anything) that backs up your claim. You thought you could do that with links about covid deaths (which turned out to be wrong). Why would now be any different? Nope, You're such an idiot you didn't even catch the mistake I made in my last post. No, I'm not going to point it out, you're the genius who claims PWM is used for cable testing, it should be obvious to you.
> > Real talent on show there Flunky.
> Yup, like the talent that you can't provide a link to prove your claim? I've backed up my claim repeatedly in this discussion. All you've done is:
> > Because a little pansy like you has such a difficult time understanding what "light line" means
> It doesn't mean anything. You made it up. You're lying and are too much of a coward to admit it, or you would have provided a link to support it.
> > doesn't make it anything other than what it is.
> Correct. It's a fabrication on your part. You made it up, thinking it was true, and now that you can't back up your claim, you resort to
> " (predicted response, ad hominem + change of subject)."
> > Ahh, the courage of anonymity and distance. You are so obviously proud of your ignorance.
> QED.
> Prove me wrong, you impotent half-wit. Ignorance is claiming PWM is used for cable testing and 'light lines' = fiber optics. Only an absolute moron with the technical background of a high school drop out that got kicked out of the air force would make such a claim, then stick by it with nothing more than ad hominems for support, and be proud of that behaviour. Your mother must have been incredibly disappointed in how much of an absolute loser you turned out to be, and if she wasn't she was a pretty shitty mother. The sad thing here, is that you've somehow deluded yourself into actually believing PWM is used for cable testing and 'light lines' = fiber optics. It's no wonder you were fired from every job you've ever had. You're an absolute idiot with the moral character of a pedophile priest. Either put up, or shut the fuck up.

I have no intentions of designing a PWM wire tester and waste any more time on you. You aren't even a technician and you're telling an engineer that he doesn't know what he's talking about. If you had ANY reputable experience at all you could at least understand how that would work. You and Jeff can agree with each other than you can in some manner use a megger to check a mile of wire for shorts or opens.

Flunky already uses a rather stupid comments. After he cites Time Domaine Reflectometry which is really what I was speaking of since it CAN use PWM to give additional information, like the idiot he is he talks about PWM motor drives. Even in that Fluke comment it describes modification of waveforms due to signal input and cable length but stupid doesn't understand anything that means.

Flunky and his butt buddy can't even understand that you use PWM to achieve Time Domaine Reflectometry since that pulse width of necessity changes with the length and other particulars of the wires being tested.

While you two are sucking each other off remember that you're the one that looked directly at this and couldn't see the fucking functions I was talking about: https://hvtechnologies.com/the-basics-of-time-domain-reflectometry-tdr/