On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 8:10:45 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 4:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 12:52:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 2/11/2024 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Just because you cannot understand how you could measure the length of a piece of wire with PWM it doesn't exist.
> >> To be impartial, I'm going to agree with that statement of Tom's, at
> >> least in general. Any one of us will have technical points they may not
> >> understand. None of us knows everything.
> >>
> >> However, based on their posts, it looks to me that Zen understands quite
> >> a bit more about such things than Tom does.
> >>
> >> Still, if Tom is correct, he can gain a big increase in respect by doing
> >> something simple: Post a good link, or give a good detailed explanation,
> >> showing how to measure a length of wire using PWM.
> >>
> >> It's not my field, so educate me!
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> > You don't know anything about it but "post a link" that explains it to you?
> Yes. I do that with mechanical engineering stuff from time to time. You
> should be able to do it with electronic stuff.
>
> > Electron "drift" in a wire is about 1 mm per second. All you do is either use signal reflection (which isn't very good in lengthy wires) or better to connect two of the wires together (telephone cables have four wires in the cable) and apply a signal to one end.You look at the other end with an oscilloscope and use PWM until the pulses perfectly overlap and measure the time and multiply by 1 mm per second and then count the time of the pulse width and divide by two' Why this is so difficult...
>
> Oddly, so far I can't find any online justification of that method.
> Instead, I find things like this:
>
> https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/how-to-locate-underground-faults-on-cable
>
> Nothing you described is listed as part of their methods. I wonder why.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Krygowski, if you don't know anything about it why are you attempting to compare two different things?

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 1:46:35 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 8:30:11 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
> >> On 2/11/2024 11:01 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 5:17:18 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
> >>>> On 2/10/2024 3:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, why don't you tell us who your employer is?
> >>>>>
> >>>> I'll do that after you show a link to a piece of test equipment that
> >>>> uses PWM to test cables (and no, TDR testers do not use PWM as the
> >>>> signal source).
> >>>
> >>> Dumber and dumber - you're telling me what test equipment I build for a business I was co-owner of.
> >> No, stupid, I'm saying you're lying about it. You never designed any
> >> test equipment, let alone for any business you allegedly co-owned. Show
> >> a link to a piece of test equipment that uses PWM to test cables, and
> >> I'll post my Linkedin page.
> >>>
> >>> By the way, you said you only publish once or twice a day.
> >> No, I didn't. Try reading for what I wrote rather than what you wanted
> >> me to write.
> >>> This is the third time in the last three hours
> >> It's also sunday, dumbass.
> >>> and this is probably your home account while Flunkmeister is you business account.
> >> If you had any clue about how this interweb thingie works you'd know
> >> I've been posting exclusively from my Thunderbird account for a while
> >> now, regardless of the time of day. You'd also know I was posting
> >> exclusively through Google Groups until I installed Thunderbird on both
> >> my home and work machines, regardless of the time of day. You do know
> >> that Thunderbird is a proxy, right?
> >>> Why don't you tell us your employer so that we can ask him to decide?
> >> I'll do that after you show a link to a piece of test equipment that
> >> uses PWM to test cables (and no, TDR testers do not use PWM as the
> >> signal source).
> >> Or will you just continue to claim to be the richest and most famous
> >> electronics engineer/'senior business consultant' no one has ever heard of?
> >
> > Just because you cannot understand how you could measure the length of a piece of wire with PWM it doesn't exist.
> That's true, and I stated exactly that a number of times. I believe I
> wrote "I can certainly conceive of how it's done, but it's not a common
> method and there is no test equipment designed to test cable using PWM".
> > Neither did anyone ever call Fiber optics "light lines until you were showed it and even then you denied it. https://www.fiberopticstech.com/products/light-lines/
> No, tommy, Your claim was that it's a common;y used term in telecom,
> used by AT&T technicians. It isn't. The link you showed is a trade name
> for an illumination 'light pipe'. Not telecom fiber optics.
>
> I repeat - _NO ONE_ uses the term 'light lines' to describe fiber optics
> in telecom. That has been my claim all along since you first made the
> assinine statement, and you still haven't proven it wrong.
> > Didn't you just say that you only posted once a day? So you're lying about that as well.
> No, tommy, I never wrote that I post only once a day.
> > Mr. Electronics Engineer who can't make a living at it wants to tell us about things he can't understand. "Give me proof?" Kiss my ass you nobody.
> In other words, you can't give proof because there is none. The
> challenge still stands - show a link to a piece of test equipment that
> uses PWM to test cables and I'll post my Linkedin account.
> > Go talk to Liebermann, you and he have held equal jobs. Barely a technician level. In fact, I am insulting technicians putting you and Liebermann in the same class as a good technician. As for wealthy, you can't even rise to the level of making a decent living and it is plain why.
> lol...sure thing sparky. I'm so broke I have out regular two vacations
> planned this year - we're going to Aruba for a change instead of
> Martha's Vinyard this year in the spring, and in late summer we're
> taking our regular weeklong trip Alton near Winnipesake. Where is the
> rich and famous tommy the genius going on vacation?
>
> lol...silly tommy - flailing about in arrogant ignorance.

Again, I don't even have to rebut you since you were so certain about your intellectual abilities while leaping to the entirely incorrect conclusions that I only need laugh.

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 2:56:27 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 4:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 12:52:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 2/11/2024 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Just because you cannot understand how you could measure the length of a piece of wire with PWM it doesn't exist.
> >> To be impartial, I'm going to agree with that statement of Tom's, at
> >> least in general. Any one of us will have technical points they may not
> >> understand. None of us knows everything.
> >>
> >> However, based on their posts, it looks to me that Zen understands quite
> >> a bit more about such things than Tom does.
> >>
> >> Still, if Tom is correct, he can gain a big increase in respect by doing
> >> something simple: Post a good link, or give a good detailed explanation,
> >> showing how to measure a length of wire using PWM.
> >>
> >> It's not my field, so educate me!
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> LOL... I thought this would be good. REad on Frnak.
> > You don't know anything about it but "post a link" that explains it to you? Electron "drift" in a wire is about 1 mm per second.
> Too bad "electron drift" has absolutely nothing to do with this. Tommy's
> actually referring to "Drift Velocity", but as usual he gets his terms
> confused, much like he confused PWM with TDR, (then didn't recall what
> the initialism TDR actually means). BTW, drift velocity in a copper wire
> is generally in the micrometer per second range, not millimeters/sec.
> > All you do is either use signal reflection (which isn't very good in lengthy wires) or better to connect two of the wires together (telephone cables have four wires in the cable) and apply a signal to one end.You look at the other end with an oscilloscope and use PWM until the pulses perfectly overlap and measure the time and multiply by 1 mm per second and then count the time of the pulse width and divide by two'
> oh.
> dear.
> gawd.
>
> Complete nonsense.
>
> 1) no tommy, that isn't PWM. For the (probably) 20th time, PWM is a
> constant signal with a varying pulse width used for motor and lighting
> controls. Varying individual pulses manually and measuring some aspect
> of the transmitted signal isn't PWM. Even if you use equipment that
> automates the process, that isn't PWM.
>
> 2) You're referring to propagation delay of a cable and that's not how
> its done. You don't need to vary the pulse width or any other aspect of
> the signal, you simply compare the source (using it a scope trigger) the
> measure the delay of the signal on the other end.
>
> 3) You don't use electron drift in the calculation, you use propagation
> delay values for that type of cable. A good propagation delay
> guesstimate for copper wire is ~5 ns/m, but that can be affected by the
> type of cable (twisted pairs like tommy is blathering about may have an
> appreciable longer propagation because of the EM field set up by the
> twisted wires (affects inductive impedance vector)) . For longer cables
> it's good to get that information from the manufacturer, and yes, it's
> readily available.
>
> 4) Using a signal source that generates a pulse stream at one end of the
> cable and then monitoring the signal at the other end won't result in
> multiple pulses showing up at the 'received' end unless your 'scope
> triggering isn't set right. IOW, you won't get multiple pulses that can
> be aligned by varying the pulse width. You would have to monitor your
> source and even then due to the propagation delay of the cable you will
> never get the pulses to align.
> > Why this is so difficult that not only does the great brain of Flunky fail to understand that but he cannot even conceive of it. But he claims to be an EE and this somehow bypasses his understanding.
> You're right tommy, I couldn't conceive of such an insanely stupid and
> wrong method. What you've described simply won't work according to the
> laws of physics in this universe, but we do know the laws of physics
> don't exactly apply in tommyworld, where a dent can be ridden out of a
> top tube and tire sealant pools in the bottom of a tire while the bike
> is moving.
> > We measured rolls of wire in feet and needed to know how much wire was left in the 100 or 500 foot roll so we calculated .003834 feet in 1 mm.
> Yes tommy, 1mm = .003834 feet. Too bad that really has nothing to do
> with how you electrically measure the length of a cable.
> > So much for that vaunted knowledge of Flunky.
> Get back to me when you can come up with a _plausible_ method. I know of
> one using rise time of the PWM pulses via the impedance vector of the
> cable (as I mentioned, I can conceive of a way to do it, but measuring
> propagation delay is much easier, faster, and more accurate), but I
> obviously gave you too much credit to come up with that instead of some
> inane 'pulse alignment' nonsense.

Feeling like a fool now that you were shown how to use PWM to measure line length so you simply deny it?

On Wed Jan 31 06:12:30 2024 zen cycle wrote:
> On 1/30/2024 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 1/30/2024 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 1/30/2024 2:48 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:32:24?AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the situation in the Netherlands? Do you have large blocs of
> >>>> the
> >>>> population who have had markedly different COVID results? Do you have
> >>>> large numbers who based on party affiliation have rejected medical
> >>>> recommendations for dealing with the disease?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't know. We moved on. People would not be interested in knowing
> >>> excess deaths based on political affiliation. We have more than 2
> >>> political parties thank God. In every party there are people who are
> >>> not vaccinated and/or deny that Covid is/was a problem and didn't
> >>> need special measurements.
> >>
> >> The scientific benefit of America's intense polarization is that it
> >> provides opportunities for "natural experiments."
> >>
> >> That's probably the _only_ benefit of the situation.
> >>
> >
> > Being an 'enemy of the State' changes one's outlook:
>
> Does it?
> https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3628611-trump-calls-biden-an-enemy-of-the-state/
>
> >
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/feds-flagged-terms-like-maga-and-trump-to-financial-institutions-urged-report-of-bible-purchases-report/ar-BB1h0w99
>

Rather than dunking donuts why don't you explain to us why Biden said that he had a meeting this last trip to Europe with "the Chancellor of Germany" Francuois Mitterrand?

Flunky, you don't have a loose screw, you have the entire hardware store of loose screws.

On Wed Jan 31 05:49:30 2024 zen cycle wrote:
> On 1/30/2024 12:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:42:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/30/2024 4:46 AM, zen cycle wrote:
> >>> On 1/29/2024 4:24 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:15:58 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Unlike others in this forum I don't see a government conspiracy
> >>>>> everywhere I look.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. liitle man, go ahead and believe what the government and the
> >>>> media want you to believe, and do what they tell you to do.
> >>>
> >>> Sure thing little man, "I don't see a government conspiracy everywhere I
> >>> look" means _exactly_ that I believe every thing the government says is
> >>> true and always do what they say (more of your 4th grade reading
> >>> comprehension on display)....Meanwhile, you go ahead and live your life
> >>> in abject fear that they are out to get you.
> >>
> >> It does seem that much of right wing philosophy is based on fear! You've
> >> gotta carry a gun for protection, the government is going to take your
> >> gas stove, Muslims are going to install Sharia Law, millions of black
> >> people are going to vote twice, college is going to turn people into
> >> transsexuals, etc. etc.
> >>
> >> So much misery!
> >
> > <GRIN> Krygowski builds more strawmen to rail against. It's what he
> > does in his pathetic attempt to boost he poor self image.
>
> Every single one of those "strawmen" are built by right-wing whackjobs.
> As usual, you pretend franks sarcasm is an expression of his beleifs.
> What a dumbass.....

Flunky, you are so far to the left you think that Karl Marx is right wing.

On Wed Jan 31 05:57:41 2024 zen cycle wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 4:28 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:42:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/30/2024 1:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 1/30/2024 11:42 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On 1/30/2024 4:46 AM, zen cycle wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/29/2024 4:24 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:15:58 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Unlike others in this forum I don't see a government conspiracy
> >>>>>>> everywhere I look.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes. liitle man, go ahead and believe what the government and the
> >>>>>> media want you to believe, and do what they tell you to do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure thing little man, "I don't see a government conspiracy
> >>>>> everywhere I look" means _exactly_ that I believe every thing the
> >>>>> government says is true and always do what they say (more of your 4th
> >>>>> grade reading comprehension on display)....Meanwhile, you go ahead
> >>>>> and live your life in abject fear that they are out to get you.
> >>>>
> >>>> It does seem that much of right wing philosophy is based on fear!
> >>>> You've gotta carry a gun for protection, the government is going to
> >>>> take your gas stove, Muslims are going to install Sharia Law, millions
> >>>> of black people are going to vote twice, college is going to turn
> >>>> people into transsexuals, etc. etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> So much misery!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Good size crowd of straw men you have there.
> >>
> >> You really think so? I think the only one of those statements that may
> >> be a _bit_ exaggerated is the last one.
> >>
> >> Both you and the Florida tricycle rider are proponents of the first - he
> >> apparently always, you at least some times.
> >
> > <EYEROLL>I think it is Krygowski's fear of guns that makes him build
> > that silly strawmen. Now he's fluffing it up with more straw.
>
> And yet you insist on carrying a gun for protection. Unless _you_ are
> the strawman, "You've gotta carry a gun for protection" is an accurate
> reflection of your beliefs.
>
> >
> >> And I've mentioned a guy I
> >> know who told me "I never leave home without it" [his handgun] when we
> >> were at a folk music concert! That _is_ driven by fear.
> >
> > Another undocumented Krygowski anecdote that, even if true, (doubtful)
> > doesn't backup his strawman.
>
> Much like your completely undocumented experience.
>
> >
> >> From
> >> https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/whats-going-on-with-the-gas-stove-ban
> >> "No, the federal government isn?t coming for your gas stove." Consider
> >> that it was necessary for an article to say that!
> >
> >
> > U.S. Consumer Product Safety commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. lit up
> > the airwaves this week when he told Bloomberg that having a gas stove
> > is a ?hidden hazard? that can cause health problems. A study from
> > December links gas stove use to childhood asthma, and that's a
> > justification for the regulation.
> > Any option is on the table,? Trumka said. ?Products that can?t be made
> > safe can be banned.?
> >
> > His agency intends to ?to take action? to address these dangers,
> > according to Bloomberg.
> > https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/01/11/biden-gas-stove-ban-turns-up-heat/11032200002/
> >
> > Later Trumka back away from that.
>
> So it wasn't a strawman after all - thanks for proving franks point, dumbass
>
> >
> >> https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/02/05/anti-sharia-law-bills-united-states
> >> "One of the most successful far-right conspiracies to achieve
> >> mainstream viability, the mass hysteria surrounding a so-called threat
> >> of ?Sharia law? in the United States..." "Mass hysteria" was a
> >> purposely generated fear that Muslims would actually try to supplant our
> >> legal system.
> >
> > There was a 2009 domestic abuse case in New Jersey where a trial judge
> > deferred to Sharia tenets, but the state?s Superior Court shot that
> > down.
> > https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/sep/03/ask-politifact-no-sharia-law-does-not-trump-us-law/
> >
> > Nothing wrong with legislation insuring that such things always get
> > shot down.
>
> So there were right wing attempts at "anti-sharia" legislation, meaning
> it wasn't strawman, thanks again for proving you're a dumbass.
>
> >
> >> And Given Tom's posts here, I don't need a reference for the fears about
> >> undesirable people voting twice, do I?
> >
> > That's from Krygowski who is afraid of having a gun in his home
> > because he believes it makes it more likely that he'll be shot.
>
> That's from a scared little kitty whose afraid to leave his house
> without a gun.
>
Catrike, every time your psuedonym is mentioned, Flunky craps his pants, He thinks that you're going to shoot him and is scared out of his mind. That is why he has to use another name for you, his office smells so bad now that the people doing the real work won't enter his office.

On 2/12/2024 11:08 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 8:17:43 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:

>> lol...sure, they fired you for wanting to innovate....yeah, that sounds
>> like something ClearCom would do, never develop a new product!
>>
>> No, Tommy, no one believes Clearcom's business model is/was a static
>> product line. Like all your other jobs, you were fired for being an
>> inept asshole, and it starts with things like "PWM is commonly used to
>> test cables" and 'TDR = time delay reflection'.
>>
>> Isn't there a bike repair you should be fucking up right about now?
> You;re the only one in the world who believes that a 10 bit A-D is as sensitive as a 24 Bit A-D. I don't even have to rebut you. You declare to the world your ignorance.

lol....Please, show where I claimed a 10 bit a/d is just as sensitive as
a 24 bit a/d.

--
Add xx to reply

On 2/11/2024 11:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 4:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 12:52:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just because you cannot understand how you could measure the length
>>>> of a piece of wire with PWM it doesn't exist.
>>> To be impartial, I'm going to agree with that statement of Tom's, at
>>> least in general. Any one of us will have technical points they may not
>>> understand. None of us knows everything.
>>>
>>> However, based on their posts, it looks to me that Zen understands quite
>>> a bit more about such things than Tom does.
>>>
>>> Still, if Tom is correct, he can gain a big increase in respect by doing
>>> something simple: Post a good link, or give a good detailed explanation,
>>> showing how to measure a length of wire using PWM.
>>>
>>> It's not my field, so educate me!
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> You don't know anything about it but "post a link" that explains it to
>> you?
>
> Yes. I do that with mechanical engineering stuff from time to time. You
> should be able to do it with electronic stuff.
>
>> Electron "drift" in a wire is about 1 mm per second. All you do is
>> either use signal reflection (which isn't very good in lengthy wires)
>> or better to connect two of the wires together (telephone cables have
>> four wires in the cable) and apply a signal to one end.You look at the
>> other end with an oscilloscope and use PWM until the pulses perfectly
>> overlap and measure the  time and multiply by 1 mm per second and then
>> count the time of the pulse width and divide by two' Why this is so
>> difficult...
>
> Oddly, so far I can't find any online justification of that method.
> Instead, I find things like this:
>
> https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/how-to-locate-underground-faults-on-cable
>
> Nothing you described is listed as part of their methods. I wonder why.

It's because of three issues:
1) he isn't' describing a PWM signal, and even if he was...
2) his method is complete nonesense
a) electron drift (or more accurately 'drift velocity') is completely
irrelevant
b) you won't get two pulses using a single channel on the scope unless
you're doing it wrong (hey, this is tommy we're talking about)
c) cable propagation is significantly faster than 1mm/second. If you
use the accepted ballpark speed of ~5nS/meter, it turns out to be 200
million meters/sec.
3) no one tests cables like that.

>

--
Add xx to reply

On 2/12/2024 11:18 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 2:56:27 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 4:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 12:52:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because you cannot understand how you could measure the length of a piece of wire with PWM it doesn't exist.
>>>> To be impartial, I'm going to agree with that statement of Tom's, at
>>>> least in general. Any one of us will have technical points they may not
>>>> understand. None of us knows everything.
>>>>
>>>> However, based on their posts, it looks to me that Zen understands quite
>>>> a bit more about such things than Tom does.
>>>>
>>>> Still, if Tom is correct, he can gain a big increase in respect by doing
>>>> something simple: Post a good link, or give a good detailed explanation,
>>>> showing how to measure a length of wire using PWM.
>>>>
>>>> It's not my field, so educate me!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> LOL... I thought this would be good. REad on Frnak.
>>> You don't know anything about it but "post a link" that explains it to you? Electron "drift" in a wire is about 1 mm per second.
>> Too bad "electron drift" has absolutely nothing to do with this. Tommy's
>> actually referring to "Drift Velocity", but as usual he gets his terms
>> confused, much like he confused PWM with TDR, (then didn't recall what
>> the initialism TDR actually means). BTW, drift velocity in a copper wire
>> is generally in the micrometer per second range, not millimeters/sec.
>>> All you do is either use signal reflection (which isn't very good in lengthy wires) or better to connect two of the wires together (telephone cables have four wires in the cable) and apply a signal to one end.You look at the other end with an oscilloscope and use PWM until the pulses perfectly overlap and measure the time and multiply by 1 mm per second and then count the time of the pulse width and divide by two'
>> oh.
>> dear.
>> gawd.
>>
>> Complete nonsense.
>>
>> 1) no tommy, that isn't PWM. For the (probably) 20th time, PWM is a
>> constant signal with a varying pulse width used for motor and lighting
>> controls. Varying individual pulses manually and measuring some aspect
>> of the transmitted signal isn't PWM. Even if you use equipment that
>> automates the process, that isn't PWM.
>>
>> 2) You're referring to propagation delay of a cable and that's not how
>> its done. You don't need to vary the pulse width or any other aspect of
>> the signal, you simply compare the source (using it a scope trigger) the
>> measure the delay of the signal on the other end.
>>
>> 3) You don't use electron drift in the calculation, you use propagation
>> delay values for that type of cable. A good propagation delay
>> guesstimate for copper wire is ~5 ns/m, but that can be affected by the
>> type of cable (twisted pairs like tommy is blathering about may have an
>> appreciable longer propagation because of the EM field set up by the
>> twisted wires (affects inductive impedance vector)) . For longer cables
>> it's good to get that information from the manufacturer, and yes, it's
>> readily available.
>>
>> 4) Using a signal source that generates a pulse stream at one end of the
>> cable and then monitoring the signal at the other end won't result in
>> multiple pulses showing up at the 'received' end unless your 'scope
>> triggering isn't set right. IOW, you won't get multiple pulses that can
>> be aligned by varying the pulse width. You would have to monitor your
>> source and even then due to the propagation delay of the cable you will
>> never get the pulses to align.
>>> Why this is so difficult that not only does the great brain of Flunky fail to understand that but he cannot even conceive of it. But he claims to be an EE and this somehow bypasses his understanding.
>> You're right tommy, I couldn't conceive of such an insanely stupid and
>> wrong method. What you've described simply won't work according to the
>> laws of physics in this universe, but we do know the laws of physics
>> don't exactly apply in tommyworld, where a dent can be ridden out of a
>> top tube and tire sealant pools in the bottom of a tire while the bike
>> is moving.
>>> We measured rolls of wire in feet and needed to know how much wire was left in the 100 or 500 foot roll so we calculated .003834 feet in 1 mm.
>> Yes tommy, 1mm = .003834 feet. Too bad that really has nothing to do
>> with how you electrically measure the length of a cable.
>>> So much for that vaunted knowledge of Flunky.
>> Get back to me when you can come up with a _plausible_ method. I know of
>> one using rise time of the PWM pulses via the impedance vector of the
>> cable (as I mentioned, I can conceive of a way to do it, but measuring
>> propagation delay is much easier, faster, and more accurate), but I
>> obviously gave you too much credit to come up with that instead of some
>> inane 'pulse alignment' nonsense.
>
> Feeling like a fool now that you were shown how to use PWM to measure line length so you simply deny it?

lol...No, tommy, I needed a good laugh due to my recent workload, and
you provided it. I showed your post to a coworker and his response was
"why do you waste your time on idiots like that?"

Your method is contradicted by the laws of physics in this universe.
Again, thanks for the laugh!
--
Add xx to reply

On 2/12/2024 11:14 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 1:46:35 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 8:30:11 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 11:01 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 5:17:18 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/10/2024 3:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, why don't you tell us who your employer is?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll do that after you show a link to a piece of test equipment that
>>>>>> uses PWM to test cables (and no, TDR testers do not use PWM as the
>>>>>> signal source).
>>>>>
>>>>> Dumber and dumber - you're telling me what test equipment I build for a business I was co-owner of.
>>>> No, stupid, I'm saying you're lying about it. You never designed any
>>>> test equipment, let alone for any business you allegedly co-owned. Show
>>>> a link to a piece of test equipment that uses PWM to test cables, and
>>>> I'll post my Linkedin page.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, you said you only publish once or twice a day.
>>>> No, I didn't. Try reading for what I wrote rather than what you wanted
>>>> me to write.
>>>>> This is the third time in the last three hours
>>>> It's also sunday, dumbass.
>>>>> and this is probably your home account while Flunkmeister is you business account.
>>>> If you had any clue about how this interweb thingie works you'd know
>>>> I've been posting exclusively from my Thunderbird account for a while
>>>> now, regardless of the time of day. You'd also know I was posting
>>>> exclusively through Google Groups until I installed Thunderbird on both
>>>> my home and work machines, regardless of the time of day. You do know
>>>> that Thunderbird is a proxy, right?
>>>>> Why don't you tell us your employer so that we can ask him to decide?
>>>> I'll do that after you show a link to a piece of test equipment that
>>>> uses PWM to test cables (and no, TDR testers do not use PWM as the
>>>> signal source).
>>>> Or will you just continue to claim to be the richest and most famous
>>>> electronics engineer/'senior business consultant' no one has ever heard of?
>>>
>>> Just because you cannot understand how you could measure the length of a piece of wire with PWM it doesn't exist.
>> That's true, and I stated exactly that a number of times. I believe I
>> wrote "I can certainly conceive of how it's done, but it's not a common
>> method and there is no test equipment designed to test cable using PWM".
>>> Neither did anyone ever call Fiber optics "light lines until you were showed it and even then you denied it. https://www.fiberopticstech.com/products/light-lines/
>> No, tommy, Your claim was that it's a common;y used term in telecom,
>> used by AT&T technicians. It isn't. The link you showed is a trade name
>> for an illumination 'light pipe'. Not telecom fiber optics.
>>
>> I repeat - _NO ONE_ uses the term 'light lines' to describe fiber optics
>> in telecom. That has been my claim all along since you first made the
>> assinine statement, and you still haven't proven it wrong.
>>> Didn't you just say that you only posted once a day? So you're lying about that as well.
>> No, tommy, I never wrote that I post only once a day.
>>> Mr. Electronics Engineer who can't make a living at it wants to tell us about things he can't understand. "Give me proof?" Kiss my ass you nobody.
>> In other words, you can't give proof because there is none. The
>> challenge still stands - show a link to a piece of test equipment that
>> uses PWM to test cables and I'll post my Linkedin account.
>>> Go talk to Liebermann, you and he have held equal jobs. Barely a technician level. In fact, I am insulting technicians putting you and Liebermann in the same class as a good technician. As for wealthy, you can't even rise to the level of making a decent living and it is plain why.
>> lol...sure thing sparky. I'm so broke I have out regular two vacations
>> planned this year - we're going to Aruba for a change instead of
>> Martha's Vinyard this year in the spring, and in late summer we're
>> taking our regular weeklong trip Alton near Winnipesake. Where is the
>> rich and famous tommy the genius going on vacation?
>>
>> lol...silly tommy - flailing about in arrogant ignorance.
>
> Again, I don't even have to rebut you since you were so certain about your intellectual abilities while leaping to the entirely incorrect conclusions that I only need laugh.

And still no proof of anyone using PWM to test cables.

Keep flailing tommy......

--
Add xx to reply

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 1:05:09 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 11:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/11/2024 4:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 12:52:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 2/11/2024 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Just because you cannot understand how you could measure the length
> >>>> of a piece of wire with PWM it doesn't exist.
> >>> To be impartial, I'm going to agree with that statement of Tom's, at
> >>> least in general. Any one of us will have technical points they may not
> >>> understand. None of us knows everything.
> >>>
> >>> However, based on their posts, it looks to me that Zen understands quite
> >>> a bit more about such things than Tom does.
> >>>
> >>> Still, if Tom is correct, he can gain a big increase in respect by doing
> >>> something simple: Post a good link, or give a good detailed explanation,
> >>> showing how to measure a length of wire using PWM.
> >>>
> >>> It's not my field, so educate me!
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> You don't know anything about it but "post a link" that explains it to
> >> you?
> >
> > Yes. I do that with mechanical engineering stuff from time to time. You
> > should be able to do it with electronic stuff.
> >
> >> Electron "drift" in a wire is about 1 mm per second. All you do is
> >> either use signal reflection (which isn't very good in lengthy wires)
> >> or better to connect two of the wires together (telephone cables have
> >> four wires in the cable) and apply a signal to one end.You look at the
> >> other end with an oscilloscope and use PWM until the pulses perfectly
> >> overlap and measure the time and multiply by 1 mm per second and then
> >> count the time of the pulse width and divide by two' Why this is so
> >> difficult...
> >
> > Oddly, so far I can't find any online justification of that method.
> > Instead, I find things like this:
> >
> > https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/how-to-locate-underground-faults-on-cable
> >
> > Nothing you described is listed as part of their methods. I wonder why.
> It's because of three issues:
> 1) he isn't' describing a PWM signal, and even if he was...
> 2) his method is complete nonesense
> a) electron drift (or more accurately 'drift velocity') is completely
> irrelevant
> b) you won't get two pulses using a single channel on the scope unless
> you're doing it wrong (hey, this is tommy we're talking about)
> c) cable propagation is significantly faster than 1mm/second. If you
> use the accepted ballpark speed of ~5nS/meter, it turns out to be 200
> million meters/sec.
> 3) no one tests cables like that.
> >
>
> --
> Add xx to reply

When you don't know what you're talking about and everyone can see it you should simply remain silent rather than look the fool you are. Apparently you do not understand how to use an oscilloscope and and want to advertise it.. "I'm stupid and here's why".

On 2/13/2024 10:20 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 1:05:09 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 11:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 4:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 12:52:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just because you cannot understand how you could measure the length
>>>>>> of a piece of wire with PWM it doesn't exist.
>>>>> To be impartial, I'm going to agree with that statement of Tom's, at
>>>>> least in general. Any one of us will have technical points they may not
>>>>> understand. None of us knows everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, based on their posts, it looks to me that Zen understands quite
>>>>> a bit more about such things than Tom does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, if Tom is correct, he can gain a big increase in respect by doing
>>>>> something simple: Post a good link, or give a good detailed explanation,
>>>>> showing how to measure a length of wire using PWM.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not my field, so educate me!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>> You don't know anything about it but "post a link" that explains it to
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> Yes. I do that with mechanical engineering stuff from time to time. You
>>> should be able to do it with electronic stuff.
>>>
>>>> Electron "drift" in a wire is about 1 mm per second. All you do is
>>>> either use signal reflection (which isn't very good in lengthy wires)
>>>> or better to connect two of the wires together (telephone cables have
>>>> four wires in the cable) and apply a signal to one end.You look at the
>>>> other end with an oscilloscope and use PWM until the pulses perfectly
>>>> overlap and measure the time and multiply by 1 mm per second and then
>>>> count the time of the pulse width and divide by two' Why this is so
>>>> difficult...
>>>
>>> Oddly, so far I can't find any online justification of that method.
>>> Instead, I find things like this:
>>>
>>> https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/how-to-locate-underground-faults-on-cable
>>>
>>> Nothing you described is listed as part of their methods. I wonder why.
>> It's because of three issues:
>> 1) he isn't' describing a PWM signal, and even if he was...
>> 2) his method is complete nonesense
>> a) electron drift (or more accurately 'drift velocity') is completely
>> irrelevant
>> b) you won't get two pulses using a single channel on the scope unless
>> you're doing it wrong (hey, this is tommy we're talking about)
>> c) cable propagation is significantly faster than 1mm/second. If you
>> use the accepted ballpark speed of ~5nS/meter, it turns out to be 200
>> million meters/sec.
>> 3) no one tests cables like that.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Add xx to reply
>
> When you don't know what you're talking about and everyone can see it you should simply remain silent rather than look the fool you are. Apparently you do not understand how to use an oscilloscope and and want to advertise it. "I'm stupid and here's why".

lol...sure sparky, and rather than address the actual technical issues,
you simply say "you don't know what you're talking about".

I've listed three points above that illustrate why your method is stupid
and wrong. If you have legitimate counter arguments, state them,
otherwise, stating "you don't know what you're talking about" is exactly
the same as stating "I'm stupid and here's why".

Keep flailing tommy.....HAH!!!

On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 1:49:31 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
> On 2/13/2024 10:20 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 1:05:09 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> >> On 2/11/2024 11:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 2/11/2024 4:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 12:52:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just because you cannot understand how you could measure the length
> >>>>>> of a piece of wire with PWM it doesn't exist.
> >>>>> To be impartial, I'm going to agree with that statement of Tom's, at
> >>>>> least in general. Any one of us will have technical points they may not
> >>>>> understand. None of us knows everything.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, based on their posts, it looks to me that Zen understands quite
> >>>>> a bit more about such things than Tom does.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Still, if Tom is correct, he can gain a big increase in respect by doing
> >>>>> something simple: Post a good link, or give a good detailed explanation,
> >>>>> showing how to measure a length of wire using PWM.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not my field, so educate me!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>> You don't know anything about it but "post a link" that explains it to
> >>>> you?
> >>>
> >>> Yes. I do that with mechanical engineering stuff from time to time. You
> >>> should be able to do it with electronic stuff.
> >>>
> >>>> Electron "drift" in a wire is about 1 mm per second. All you do is
> >>>> either use signal reflection (which isn't very good in lengthy wires)
> >>>> or better to connect two of the wires together (telephone cables have
> >>>> four wires in the cable) and apply a signal to one end.You look at the
> >>>> other end with an oscilloscope and use PWM until the pulses perfectly
> >>>> overlap and measure the time and multiply by 1 mm per second and then
> >>>> count the time of the pulse width and divide by two' Why this is so
> >>>> difficult...
> >>>
> >>> Oddly, so far I can't find any online justification of that method.
> >>> Instead, I find things like this:
> >>>
> >>> https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/how-to-locate-underground-faults-on-cable
> >>>
> >>> Nothing you described is listed as part of their methods. I wonder why.
> >> It's because of three issues:
> >> 1) he isn't' describing a PWM signal, and even if he was...
> >> 2) his method is complete nonesense
> >> a) electron drift (or more accurately 'drift velocity') is completely
> >> irrelevant
> >> b) you won't get two pulses using a single channel on the scope unless
> >> you're doing it wrong (hey, this is tommy we're talking about)
> >> c) cable propagation is significantly faster than 1mm/second. If you
> >> use the accepted ballpark speed of ~5nS/meter, it turns out to be 200
> >> million meters/sec.
> >> 3) no one tests cables like that.
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Add xx to reply
> >
> > When you don't know what you're talking about and everyone can see it you should simply remain silent rather than look the fool you are. Apparently you do not understand how to use an oscilloscope and and want to advertise it. "I'm stupid and here's why".
> lol...sure sparky, and rather than address the actual technical issues,
> you simply say "you don't know what you're talking about".
>
> I've listed three points above that illustrate why your method is stupid
> and wrong. If you have legitimate counter arguments, state them,
> otherwise, stating "you don't know what you're talking about" is exactly
> the same as stating "I'm stupid and here's why".
>
> Keep flailing tommy.....HAH!!!

Who do you think you're kidding. I set it up for you to find the large error and you couldn't even see it. There is a time delay between inputting a signal but it sure as hell isn't 1 mm per second and as a degreed EE you showed that you're too stupid to even understand the concept. What was your total misunderstanding of what TDR is as well? Your comments over and over show that you're a homosexual. You have the same need to be the master of all you survey.

Why don't you show us more of your fucking Slime Stream Media references. They have ceased making any attempt to look impartial with the firing of 800 conservative reporters including internationally awarded impartial reporters who have only a slight conservative bend such as only wanting to report the TRUTH. You are a mindless ass that is nothing more than a manufacturing engineer that they need to sign off paperwork. Stupid is as stupid does and you "does"it all.

On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 1:49:31 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
> > On 2/13/2024 10:20 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 1:05:09 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> > >> On 2/11/2024 11:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>> On 2/11/2024 4:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>> You don't know anything about it but "post a link" that explains it to
> > >>>> you?
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes. I do that with mechanical engineering stuff from time to time. You
> > >>> should be able to do it with electronic stuff.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Electron "drift" in a wire is about 1 mm per second. All you do is
> > >>>> either use signal reflection (which isn't very good in lengthy wires)
> > >>>> or better to connect two of the wires together (telephone cables have
> > >>>> four wires in the cable) and apply a signal to one end.You look at the
> > >>>> other end with an oscilloscope and use PWM until the pulses perfectly
> > >>>> overlap and measure the time and multiply by 1 mm per second and then
> > >>>> count the time of the pulse width and divide by two' Why this is so
> > >>>> difficult...
> > >>>
> > >>> Oddly, so far I can't find any online justification of that method.
> > >>> Instead, I find things like this:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/how-to-locate-underground-faults-on-cable
> > >>>
> > >>> Nothing you described is listed as part of their methods. I wonder why.
> > >> It's because of three issues:
> > >> 1) he isn't' describing a PWM signal, and even if he was...
> > >> 2) his method is complete nonesense
> > >> a) electron drift (or more accurately 'drift velocity') is completely
> > >> irrelevant
> > >> b) you won't get two pulses using a single channel on the scope unless
> > >> you're doing it wrong (hey, this is tommy we're talking about)
> > >> c) cable propagation is significantly faster than 1mm/second. If you
> > >> use the accepted ballpark speed of ~5nS/meter, it turns out to be 200
> > >> million meters/sec.
> > >> 3) no one tests cables like that.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Add xx to reply
> > >
> > > When you don't know what you're talking about and everyone can see it you should simply remain silent rather than look the fool you are. Apparently you do not understand how to use an oscilloscope and and want to advertise it. "I'm stupid and here's why".
> > lol...sure sparky, and rather than address the actual technical issues,
> > you simply say "you don't know what you're talking about".
> >
> > I've listed three points above that illustrate why your method is stupid
> > and wrong. If you have legitimate counter arguments, state them,
> > otherwise, stating "you don't know what you're talking about" is exactly
> > the same as stating "I'm stupid and here's why".
> >
> > Keep flailing tommy.....HAH!!!
>
> Who do you think you're kidding.

lol...no one.

> I set it up for you to find the large error and you couldn't even see it.

Silly little man. I pointed out three glaring mistakes.

> There is a time delay between inputting a signal but it sure as hell isn't 1 mm per second and as a degreed EE you showed that you're too stupid to even understand the concept.

You're correct. the delay isn't 1mm/second as you claimed. It's ~5nS/meter as I claimed. What was it I didn't catch again? ...lol.....oh, right, how you jumped from claiming I didn't know how to use an oscilloscope to claiming you posted 1mm/sec as a ruse.....nope, didn't miss that either, lol.

> What was your total misunderstanding of what TDR is as well?

lol...If you were attempting to describe TDR, you were grossly wrong about that as well. TDR requires you to monitor the input node of the cable to detect the reflection from the transmitted pulse, not the 'other end' as you claimed, and you don't adjust the pulse width (which isn't PWM) to get the pulses to 'align'. You adjust the pulse width for extremely long lengths so the reflection is detectable (for the uninitiated(frank) the impedance from a very long cable will suppress the reflection, so more pules energy vis a larger/longer pulse may be necessary).

If your measuring length with propagation delay, you need to compare the delay of the input signal to the output signal using two channels of the oscilloscope.

I don't know what it was you were attempting to described, but it wasn't TDR, PWM, or any method that would accurately reveal the length of a cable.

> Your comments over and over show that you're a homosexual.

Ah! There it is!

> You have the same need to be the master of all you survey.

Projection duly noted.

>
> Why don't you show us more of your fucking Slime Stream Media references. They have ceased making any attempt to look impartial with the firing of 800 conservative reporters including internationally awarded impartial reporters who have only a slight conservative bend such as only wanting to report the TRUTH.

Nice topic shift - I guess that means you've completely abandoned any attempt to defend your cable test method on technical grounds. Again, duly noted..

> You are a mindless ass that is nothing more than a manufacturing engineer that they need to sign off paperwork.

Wrong again, sparky. I'm not a manufacturing engineer, never was, never claimed to be.

> Stupid is as stupid does and you "does"it all.

Not nearly as stupid as someone claiming to be an electronics engineer who thinks you can align pulses from a single pulse stream source using one channel of an oscilloscope.

Gawd this is fun. Thanks for the laugh, sparky.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 02:32:26 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>You adjust the pulse width for extremely long lengths so the reflection is detectable (for the uninitiated(frank) the impedance from a very long cable will suppress the reflection,

Replace "impedance" with "loss".

Methinks that should read:

....the loss from a very long cable will attenuate the reflection which
might be difficult to see on the oscilloscope. The pulse width used
for long cable lengths is longer so the reflected pulse can be seen on
the oscilloscope BEFORE the next pulse is transmitted. For very short
cables, the rise time of the pulse limits the minimum cable length.
There is no PWM involved anywhere in a TDR.

>so more pulses energy vis a larger/longer pulse may be necessary.

More pulses will not help and can only produce more clutter on the
oscilloscope screen. A larger (higher voltage) pulse will help when
dealing with long or high loss cables. A longer duration pulse will
allow longer lengths of cables to be tested.

>If your measuring length with propagation delay, you need to compare the delay of the input signal to the output signal using two channels of the oscilloscope.

It can be done with one channel. One installs a T-connector on the
oscilloscope vertical input. The pulse generator goes on one port of
the T connector, while the cable under test goes on the other. Two
channels are better and easier but one channel works well enough.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-domain_reflectometer>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-domain_reflectometer#/media/File:Simple_Time_Domain_Reflectometer_Diagram.png>

At home, I use one of these:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/152587007700>
or just cobble together a fast rise time pulse or function generator
and an oscilloscope to form a TDR.

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

On 2/15/2024 1:07 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 02:32:26 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You adjust the pulse width for extremely long lengths so the reflection is detectable (for the uninitiated(frank) the impedance from a very long cable will suppress the reflection,
>
> Replace "impedance" with "loss".

Loss is a derivative of impedance, but you're correct, for the initiated
"loss" is an easier concept to grasp.

>
> Methinks that should read:
>
> ...the loss from a very long cable will attenuate the reflection which
> might be difficult to see on the oscilloscope. The pulse width used
> for long cable lengths is longer so the reflected pulse can be seen on
> the oscilloscope BEFORE the next pulse is transmitted. For very short
> cables, the rise time of the pulse limits the minimum cable length.
> There is no PWM involved anywhere in a TDR.
>
>> so more pulses energy vis a larger/longer pulse may be necessary.
>
> More pulses will not help and can only produce more clutter on the
> oscilloscope screen.

Pulses was a typo on my part, should have been 'more pulse energy vis a
larger/longer pulse'

> A larger (higher voltage) pulse will help when
> dealing with long or high loss cables. A longer duration pulse will
> allow longer lengths of cables to be tested.
>
>> If your measuring length with propagation delay, you need to compare the delay of the input signal to the output signal using two channels of the oscilloscope.
>
> It can be done with one channel. One installs a T-connector on the
> oscilloscope vertical input. The pulse generator goes on one port of
> the T connector, while the cable under test goes on the other. Two
> channels are better and easier but one channel works well enough.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-domain_reflectometer>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-domain_reflectometer#/media/File:Simple_Time_Domain_Reflectometer_Diagram.png>

Yes, that's TDR 101, I was referring to a simple propagation delay
measurement which doesn't rely on trying to capture a reflected
stimulus. You need two channels for that. I remember one of my first
internships - I was tasked with building an RF delay line rack. I spent
weeks winding rigid coax around spools, then cutting the lines to the
desired delay with a 140 MHz signal using the delay as measured on the
oscilloscope.

>
> At home, I use one of these:
> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/152587007700>
> or just cobble together a fast rise time pulse or function generator
> and an oscilloscope to form a TDR.

TDR is more suited to an installed cable where you don't have access to
both ends, or you suspect damage and need to determine location of the
damage (yes, you already knew that). When you have a section of cable
like a spool and are trying to find out how long it is (like in toms
example) the two channel measurement is easier and probably more accurate.

Whichever method is used, tommy's claim that length can be determined by
'adjusting the pulse width to align the pulses' makes no sense whatsoever.

>
>

--
Add xx to reply

On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 2:32:28 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 1:49:31 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
> > > On 2/13/2024 10:20 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 1:05:09 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> > > >> On 2/11/2024 11:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > >>> On 2/11/2024 4:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > >>>> You don't know anything about it but "post a link" that explains it to
> > > >>>> you?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes. I do that with mechanical engineering stuff from time to time. You
> > > >>> should be able to do it with electronic stuff.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Electron "drift" in a wire is about 1 mm per second. All you do is
> > > >>>> either use signal reflection (which isn't very good in lengthy wires)
> > > >>>> or better to connect two of the wires together (telephone cables have
> > > >>>> four wires in the cable) and apply a signal to one end.You look at the
> > > >>>> other end with an oscilloscope and use PWM until the pulses perfectly
> > > >>>> overlap and measure the time and multiply by 1 mm per second and then
> > > >>>> count the time of the pulse width and divide by two' Why this is so
> > > >>>> difficult...
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Oddly, so far I can't find any online justification of that method.
> > > >>> Instead, I find things like this:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/how-to-locate-underground-faults-on-cable
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Nothing you described is listed as part of their methods. I wonder why.
> > > >> It's because of three issues:
> > > >> 1) he isn't' describing a PWM signal, and even if he was...
> > > >> 2) his method is complete nonesense
> > > >> a) electron drift (or more accurately 'drift velocity') is completely
> > > >> irrelevant
> > > >> b) you won't get two pulses using a single channel on the scope unless
> > > >> you're doing it wrong (hey, this is tommy we're talking about)
> > > >> c) cable propagation is significantly faster than 1mm/second. If you
> > > >> use the accepted ballpark speed of ~5nS/meter, it turns out to be 200
> > > >> million meters/sec.
> > > >> 3) no one tests cables like that.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Add xx to reply
> > > >
> > > > When you don't know what you're talking about and everyone can see it you should simply remain silent rather than look the fool you are. Apparently you do not understand how to use an oscilloscope and and want to advertise it. "I'm stupid and here's why".
> > > lol...sure sparky, and rather than address the actual technical issues,
> > > you simply say "you don't know what you're talking about".
> > >
> > > I've listed three points above that illustrate why your method is stupid
> > > and wrong. If you have legitimate counter arguments, state them,
> > > otherwise, stating "you don't know what you're talking about" is exactly
> > > the same as stating "I'm stupid and here's why".
> > >
> > > Keep flailing tommy.....HAH!!!
> >
> > Who do you think you're kidding.
> lol...no one.
> > I set it up for you to find the large error and you couldn't even see it.
> Silly little man. I pointed out three glaring mistakes.
> > There is a time delay between inputting a signal but it sure as hell isn't 1 mm per second and as a degreed EE you showed that you're too stupid to even understand the concept.
> You're correct. the delay isn't 1mm/second as you claimed. It's ~5nS/meter as I claimed. What was it I didn't catch again? ...lol.....oh, right, how you jumped from claiming I didn't know how to use an oscilloscope to claiming you posted 1mm/sec as a ruse.....nope, didn't miss that either, lol.
> > What was your total misunderstanding of what TDR is as well?
> lol...If you were attempting to describe TDR, you were grossly wrong about that as well. TDR requires you to monitor the input node of the cable to detect the reflection from the transmitted pulse, not the 'other end' as you claimed, and you don't adjust the pulse width (which isn't PWM) to get the pulses to 'align'. You adjust the pulse width for extremely long lengths so the reflection is detectable (for the uninitiated(frank) the impedance from a very long cable will suppress the reflection, so more pules energy vis a larger/longer pulse may be necessary).
>
> If your measuring length with propagation delay, you need to compare the delay of the input signal to the output signal using two channels of the oscilloscope.
>
> I don't know what it was you were attempting to described, but it wasn't TDR, PWM, or any method that would accurately reveal the length of a cable.
> > Your comments over and over show that you're a homosexual.
> Ah! There it is!
> > You have the same need to be the master of all you survey.
> Projection duly noted.
> >
> > Why don't you show us more of your fucking Slime Stream Media references. They have ceased making any attempt to look impartial with the firing of 800 conservative reporters including internationally awarded impartial reporters who have only a slight conservative bend such as only wanting to report the TRUTH.
> Nice topic shift - I guess that means you've completely abandoned any attempt to defend your cable test method on technical grounds. Again, duly noted.
> > You are a mindless ass that is nothing more than a manufacturing engineer that they need to sign off paperwork.
> Wrong again, sparky. I'm not a manufacturing engineer, never was, never claimed to be.
> > Stupid is as stupid does and you "does"it all.
> Not nearly as stupid as someone claiming to be an electronics engineer who thinks you can align pulses from a single pulse stream source using one channel of an oscilloscope.
>
> Gawd this is fun. Thanks for the laugh, sparky.

What a dumbass, you spent more than a year saying that you couldn't use PWM to measure line length and now you're amd expert on it. I will simply let everyone make their own decision of what you're full on.

On 2/15/2024 3:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 2:32:28 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Not nearly as stupid as someone claiming to be an electronics engineer who thinks you can align pulses from a single pulse stream source using one channel of an oscilloscope.
>>
>> Gawd this is fun. Thanks for the laugh, sparky.
>
> What a dumbass, you spent more than a year saying that you couldn't use PWM to measure line length and now you're amd expert on it.

I admit to being an expert on claiming PWM isn't used to measure line
length. I wrote that a year ago and I'm still writing it now. No one
uses PWM to measure line length sparky, and your example above
a) isn't PWM
2) won't give you any information that can lead to cable length
iii) isn't possible given the physical laws of this universe (you can't
align multiple pulses from a single pulse stream source using one
channel of an oscilloscope, regardless of any adjustments made to the
pulse width)

> I will simply let everyone make their own decision of what you're full on.

I'll suggested that ship sailed long ago in your case.

--
Add xx to reply

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:31:26 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/15/2024 1:07 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 02:32:26 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You adjust the pulse width for extremely long lengths so the reflection is detectable (for the uninitiated(frank) the impedance from a very long cable will suppress the reflection,
>>
>> Replace "impedance" with "loss".
>
>Loss is a derivative of impedance, but you're correct, for the initiated
>"loss" is an easier concept to grasp.

I beg to differ. Loss and impedance are not the same things. Loss is
measured in dB while impedance is measured in ohms. Transmission line
impedance is constant over the entire length of cable while
transmission line loss varies with length and at different points.
There is an area with both overlap when discussing mismatched
transmission lines where reflections due to impedance mismatch
constitutes a loss.

>>
>> Methinks that should read:
>>
>> ...the loss from a very long cable will attenuate the reflection which
>> might be difficult to see on the oscilloscope. The pulse width used
>> for long cable lengths is longer so the reflected pulse can be seen on
>> the oscilloscope BEFORE the next pulse is transmitted. For very short
>> cables, the rise time of the pulse limits the minimum cable length.
>> There is no PWM involved anywhere in a TDR.
>>
>>> so more pulses energy vis a larger/longer pulse may be necessary.
>>
>> More pulses will not help and can only produce more clutter on the
>> oscilloscope screen.
>
>Pulses was a typo on my part, should have been 'more pulse energy vis a
>larger/longer pulse'

Much better, but not quite perfect. On an oscilloscope, the pulse
energy is the area under curve (above zero volts). However, the
vertical scale markings on my various oscilloscopes all measure
voltage, not energy (joules, ergs, kilowatt-hrs, foot-pounds, BTU's,
calories, etc). I prefer voltage instead of the quicksand of the
energy units swamp.

>> A larger (higher voltage) pulse will help when
>> dealing with long or high loss cables. A longer duration pulse will
>> allow longer lengths of cables to be tested.
>>
>>> If your measuring length with propagation delay, you need to compare the delay of the input signal to the output signal using two channels of the oscilloscope.
>>
>> It can be done with one channel. One installs a T-connector on the
>> oscilloscope vertical input. The pulse generator goes on one port of
>> the T connector, while the cable under test goes on the other. Two
>> channels are better and easier but one channel works well enough.
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-domain_reflectometer>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-domain_reflectometer#/media/File:Simple_Time_Domain_Reflectometer_Diagram.png>
>
>Yes, that's TDR 101, I was referring to a simple propagation delay
>measurement which doesn't rely on trying to capture a reflected
>stimulus. You need two channels for that. I remember one of my first
>internships - I was tasked with building an RF delay line rack. I spent
>weeks winding rigid coax around spools, then cutting the lines to the
>desired delay with a 140 MHz signal using the delay as measured on the
>oscilloscope.

That works, but you were working too hard. To calculate cable length,
I just use the measured capacitance of the cable divided by the rated
capacitance per ft. That works well for molded and coaxial cable, but
not so well with twisted pair. Or, if you're dealing with a single
wire, measuring the wire resistance and dividing it by the rated
ohms/cubit will provide an even more inaccurate length.

>> At home, I use one of these:
>> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/152587007700>
>> or just cobble together a fast rise time pulse or function generator
>> and an oscilloscope to form a TDR.
>
>TDR is more suited to an installed cable where you don't have access to
>both ends, or you suspect damage and need to determine location of the
>damage (yes, you already knew that). When you have a section of cable
>like a spool and are trying to find out how long it is (like in toms
>example) the two channel measurement is easier and probably more accurate.

It's more accurate, but not easier if I have to attach a connector at
both ends of the cable instead of just one end. In the distant past,
I spent far too much time agonizing of a Tektronix TM-1502 TDR:
<https://w140.com/tekwiki/wiki/1502>
Looking for a bump or sag on the tiny oscilloscope screen was very
difficult, especially if there were a dozen splices and patches along
the length of telco twisted pair. When there was DS0, DSL or other
digital service in the bundle, add a ton of noise. Cable on a spool
is a walk in the park by comparison.

>Whichever method is used, tommy's claim that length can be determined by
>'adjusting the pulse width to align the pulses' makes no sense whatsoever.

Gone for a major service call. A friend need help attaching the glass
screen protector to her new cell phone.

--
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, February 15, 2024 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 2/15/2024 3:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 2:32:28 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Not nearly as stupid as someone claiming to be an electronics engineer who thinks you can align pulses from a single pulse stream source using one channel of an oscilloscope.
> >>
> >> Gawd this is fun. Thanks for the laugh, sparky.
> >
> > What a dumbass, you spent more than a year saying that you couldn't use PWM to measure line length and now you're amd expert on it.
> I admit to being an expert on claiming PWM isn't used to measure line
> length. I wrote that a year ago and I'm still writing it now. No one
> uses PWM to measure line length sparky, and your example above
> a) isn't PWM
> 2) won't give you any information that can lead to cable length
> iii) isn't possible given the physical laws of this universe (you can't
> align multiple pulses from a single pulse stream source using one
> channel of an oscilloscope, regardless of any adjustments made to the
> pulse width)
> > I will simply let everyone make their own decision of what you're full on.
> I'll suggested that ship sailed long ago in your case.
> --
> Add xx to reply
So you admit to being stupid. I will agree to that. My latest investment report can in and it is !,114,000 or $13,000 more than last month. This is why you can shoot your mouth off and I have the money proving I know what I'm talking about.

And my investments would be more than double what they are today if Obama wasn't elected and if my wife didn't clean me out before our divorce. She decided to return and we got remarried but now she handles her money and me mine.

Want to tell us what you're worth?

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:55:33 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/15/2024 3:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 2:32:28?AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Not nearly as stupid as someone claiming to be an electronics engineer who thinks you can align pulses from a single pulse stream source using one channel of an oscilloscope.
>>>
>>> Gawd this is fun. Thanks for the laugh, sparky.
>>
>> What a dumbass, you spent more than a year saying that you couldn't use PWM to measure line length and now you're amd expert on it.
>
>I admit to being an expert on claiming PWM isn't used to measure line
>length. I wrote that a year ago and I'm still writing it now. No one
>uses PWM to measure line length sparky, and your example above
>a) isn't PWM
>2) won't give you any information that can lead to cable length
>iii) isn't possible given the physical laws of this universe (you can't
>align multiple pulses from a single pulse stream source using one
>channel of an oscilloscope, regardless of any adjustments made to the
>pulse width)
>
>> I will simply let everyone make their own decision of what you're full on.
>
>I'll suggested that ship sailed long ago in your case.

Narcissism is pretty easy to understand, if Junior would only take the
time to look it up.

Here, I'll even help the poor little fool.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

On 2/15/2024 6:00 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:55:33 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2024 3:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 2:32:28?AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not nearly as stupid as someone claiming to be an electronics engineer who thinks you can align pulses from a single pulse stream source using one channel of an oscilloscope.
>>>>
>>>> Gawd this is fun. Thanks for the laugh, sparky.
>>>
>>> What a dumbass, you spent more than a year saying that you couldn't use PWM to measure line length and now you're amd expert on it.
>>
>> I admit to being an expert on claiming PWM isn't used to measure line
>> length. I wrote that a year ago and I'm still writing it now. No one
>> uses PWM to measure line length sparky, and your example above
>> a) isn't PWM
>> 2) won't give you any information that can lead to cable length
>> iii) isn't possible given the physical laws of this universe (you can't
>> align multiple pulses from a single pulse stream source using one
>> channel of an oscilloscope, regardless of any adjustments made to the
>> pulse width)
>>
>>> I will simply let everyone make their own decision of what you're full on.
>>
>> I'll suggested that ship sailed long ago in your case.
>
> Narcissism is pretty easy to understand, if Junior would only take the
> time to look it up.

No need all I need to do is look at you and kunich

>
> Here, I'll even help the poor little fool.

Projection duly noted

>
> https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

heal thyself, dumbass

https://psychcentral.com/blog/psychology-self/2017/09/narcissistic-projection#1

On 2/15/2024 5:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 2/15/2024 3:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 2:32:28 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not nearly as stupid as someone claiming to be an electronics engineer who thinks you can align pulses from a single pulse stream source using one channel of an oscilloscope.
>>>>
>>>> Gawd this is fun. Thanks for the laugh, sparky.
>>>
>>> What a dumbass, you spent more than a year saying that you couldn't use PWM to measure line length and now you're amd expert on it.
>> I admit to being an expert on claiming PWM isn't used to measure line
>> length. I wrote that a year ago and I'm still writing it now. No one
>> uses PWM to measure line length sparky, and your example above
>> a) isn't PWM
>> 2) won't give you any information that can lead to cable length
>> iii) isn't possible given the physical laws of this universe (you can't
>> align multiple pulses from a single pulse stream source using one
>> channel of an oscilloscope, regardless of any adjustments made to the
>> pulse width)
>>> I will simply let everyone make their own decision of what you're full on.
>> I'll suggested that ship sailed long ago in your case.
>> --
>> Add xx to reply
> So you admit to being stupid. I will agree to that.

I admit to being an expert on claiming PWM isn't used to measure line
length. I wrote that a year ago and I'm still writing it now.

You still haven't proven your case, sparky. Your method won't work, period.

> My latest investment

<snipped silly story about being rich>
blah blah blah, just more undocumented bullshit lies

>
> And my investments would be more than double what they are today if Obama wasn't elected and if my wife didn't clean me out before our divorce. She decided to return and we got remarried but now she handles her money and me mine.

oh. my. gawd.
You remarried a woman who cleaned out all your money?
WHAT A FUCKING IDIOT!!!!!!!

lol...and you call _me_ stupid. What kind of cuckold stupid loser piece
of shit takes a woman back that stole all his money?

> Want to tell us what you're worth?

~ 2M give or take. I'll tell you what I didn't do

a) be so stupid, ignorant, and naive as to get suckered into marrying a
woman that stole all my money

b) be so stupid, ignorant, and naive as to get suckered in taking her back

lol...poor little cuckold tommy

On 2/15/2024 5:14 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:31:26 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2024 1:07 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 02:32:26 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You adjust the pulse width for extremely long lengths so the reflection is detectable (for the uninitiated(frank) the impedance from a very long cable will suppress the reflection,
>>>
>>> Replace "impedance" with "loss".
>>
>> Loss is a derivative of impedance, but you're correct, for the initiated
>> "loss" is an easier concept to grasp.
>
> I beg to differ. Loss and impedance are not the same things.

I didn't say they were. I said loss can be derived from impedance. I had
to look it up because I only ever used it in class 40 years ago. Without
spending a lot of time on it, I came up with this

https://www.radioeng.cz/fulltexts/2011/11_01_295_298.pdf

The formula for deriving loss from complex impedance vector is on page
1. Granted, this is for EMI filter calculation, but in theory works for
any LC network, such as a cable.

> Loss is
> measured in dB while impedance is measured in ohms.

Really? I wasn't aware of that

> Transmission line
> impedance is constant over the entire length of cable while
> transmission line loss varies with length and at different points.
> There is an area with both overlap when discussing mismatched
> transmission lines where reflections due to impedance mismatch
> constitutes a loss.

I don't think that's the only area of overlap. I think transmission line
impedance is directly proportional to transmission line loss when taken
as a complete entity. Yes, I understand your referring to VSWR losses as
a function of cable length("line loss varies with length and at
different points"), but such losses are compensated for by impedance
matching at the load and source ends. Some of the more finicky designs
may need to have the transmission line length matched to limit VSWR
losses (e.g. microstrip), but generally speaking a matched network
should work for any reasonable transmission line length.

>
>>>
>>> Methinks that should read:
>>>
>>> ...the loss from a very long cable will attenuate the reflection which
>>> might be difficult to see on the oscilloscope. The pulse width used
>>> for long cable lengths is longer so the reflected pulse can be seen on
>>> the oscilloscope BEFORE the next pulse is transmitted. For very short
>>> cables, the rise time of the pulse limits the minimum cable length.
>>> There is no PWM involved anywhere in a TDR.
>>>
>>>> so more pulses energy vis a larger/longer pulse may be necessary.
>>>
>>> More pulses will not help and can only produce more clutter on the
>>> oscilloscope screen.
>>
>> Pulses was a typo on my part, should have been 'more pulse energy vis a
>> larger/longer pulse'
>
> Much better, but not quite perfect. On an oscilloscope, the pulse
> energy is the area under curve (above zero volts). However, the
> vertical scale markings on my various oscilloscopes all measure
> voltage, not energy (joules, ergs, kilowatt-hrs, foot-pounds, BTU's,
> calories, etc). I prefer voltage instead of the quicksand of the
> energy units swamp.

For the purposes of explaining to the uninitiated, I felt using the term
'energy' was an easier concept to grasp. At the end of the day, in real
terms, it is in fact the energy of the pulse as an aggregate, not just
the voltage. The voltage is a representation on the Scope, not what is
really happening in the network.

<snip>
>>
>> Yes, that's TDR 101, I was referring to a simple propagation delay
>> measurement which doesn't rely on trying to capture a reflected
>> stimulus. You need two channels for that. I remember one of my first
>> internships - I was tasked with building an RF delay line rack. I spent
>> weeks winding rigid coax around spools, then cutting the lines to the
>> desired delay with a 140 MHz signal using the delay as measured on the
>> oscilloscope.
>
> That works, but you were working too hard. To calculate cable length,
> I just use the measured capacitance of the cable divided by the rated
> capacitance per ft. That works well for molded and coaxial cable, but
> not so well with twisted pair. Or, if you're dealing with a single
> wire, measuring the wire resistance and dividing it by the rated
> ohms/cubit will provide an even more inaccurate length.

Except that using the theoretical delay/foot will get you close, you
need to measure to get it close enough for the tolerances they were
looking for as well as provide data for the test report. This was a
troposcatter simulator we were building for the Air Force as part of a
larger flight simulator project. I had to take scope captures that were
published in the system validation report.

>
>>> At home, I use one of these:
>>> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/152587007700>
>>> or just cobble together a fast rise time pulse or function generator
>>> and an oscilloscope to form a TDR.
>>
>> TDR is more suited to an installed cable where you don't have access to
>> both ends, or you suspect damage and need to determine location of the
>> damage (yes, you already knew that). When you have a section of cable
>> like a spool and are trying to find out how long it is (like in toms
>> example) the two channel measurement is easier and probably more accurate.
>
> It's more accurate, but not easier if I have to attach a connector at
> both ends of the cable instead of just one end. In the distant past,
> I spent far too much time agonizing of a Tektronix TM-1502 TDR:
> <https://w140.com/tekwiki/wiki/1502>
> Looking for a bump or sag on the tiny oscilloscope screen was very
> difficult, especially if there were a dozen splices and patches along
> the length of telco twisted pair.

And each and every one of those splices and patches would have sent back
their own reflection as a result of the impedance variation from the
change in physical charateristics.

When there was DS0, DSL or other
> digital service in the bundle, add a ton of noise. Cable on a spool
> is a walk in the park by comparison.
>
>> Whichever method is used, tommy's claim that length can be determined by
>> 'adjusting the pulse width to align the pulses' makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> Gone for a major service call. A friend need help attaching the glass
> screen protector to her new cell phone.
>

On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 1:43:12 AM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
> On 2/15/2024 6:00 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:55:33 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/15/2024 3:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 2:32:28?AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail..com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Not nearly as stupid as someone claiming to be an electronics engineer who thinks you can align pulses from a single pulse stream source using one channel of an oscilloscope.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gawd this is fun. Thanks for the laugh, sparky.
> >>>
> >>> What a dumbass, you spent more than a year saying that you couldn't use PWM to measure line length and now you're amd expert on it.
> >>
> >> I admit to being an expert on claiming PWM isn't used to measure line
> >> length. I wrote that a year ago and I'm still writing it now. No one
> >> uses PWM to measure line length sparky, and your example above
> >> a) isn't PWM
> >> 2) won't give you any information that can lead to cable length
> >> iii) isn't possible given the physical laws of this universe (you can't
> >> align multiple pulses from a single pulse stream source using one
> >> channel of an oscilloscope, regardless of any adjustments made to the
> >> pulse width)
> >>
> >>> I will simply let everyone make their own decision of what you're full on.
> >>
> >> I'll suggested that ship sailed long ago in your case.
> >
> > Narcissism is pretty easy to understand, if Junior would only take the
> > time to look it up.
> No need all I need to do is look at you and kunich
> >
> > Here, I'll even help the poor little fool.
> Projection duly noted
>
> >
> > https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662
>
> heal thyself, dumbass
>
> https://psychcentral.com/blog/psychology-self/2017/09/narcissistic-projection#1

You continue to show your incompetency with every posting.