• About EEVblog

    Check Also

    EEVblog #1040 – Caesium Beam Frequency Standards

    A look at the Caesium beam time and frequency standards at the Keysight standards lab ...

    • Dave, I put it to you that you are an electronics engineer, not an
      architectural engineer.

      It follows that your opinion on architectural matters carries about as much weight as an audio-phools opinion on electronics.

      Don’t feel too bad, everybody is an idiot about some things, the trick is knowing what you are an idiot about.

      • Slobodan

        HAHAHA. Go watch your 4th Reich television.

    • ac

      I saw a debunking of tower 7 demolition theory where they showed a ton of controlled demolition videos to tower 7 “demolition”. This was done by controlled demolition experts, it’s on the net. The tower 7 collapse looked nothing like any of the demolitions. But if you can come up with dozens of demolition videos where they actually look like the t7 collapse then I might buy your stuff.

    • ac


      I couldn’t find the video I saw some years ago, I guess they took it off since they decided to make a doc for TV later.

      In another video I saw there was timeline of the video and sound being compared from various recordings. It showed there were no sounds of explosives recorded when Tower 7 collapsed.

      From my POV all the 9/11 conspiracy theories so far have been debunked entirely. But I guess you were joking there in being serious about that? Got me.

    • ac

      Here’s a video of controlled implosion of

      a bank
      large department store:
      large hotel, looks very similar to T7 collapse except there’s sound of it being a demolition job:

      As you can hear, there’s a ton of explosives going of. I guess they developed some whole new way to silently implode Tower 7 since like said there’s no evidence of such sounds anywhere near the time of the collapse.

      Unfortunately not in all the videos are the lowest levels are clearly visible so telltale puffs of dust/flashes and other visual signs of the explosives are not always visible in these videos, but there’s always a ton of explosion noises before the collapse starts.

    • ac

      BTW. I wish you got bigger chat screen. I’ve watched all the live shows (not being able to be around when they’re recorded) and it’s really annoying that a ton of interesting questions go unanswered when they roll off screen while you’re still on about some other subject.

      I heard youtube is testing live video streaming with partners though IDK if that supports live chat, might need to run that mIRC client with it.

    • Lotus

      Dave, you mention that you’re adding the Peak Atlas LCR meter to your upcoming review.

      I’m hoping that you’ll also add the TH2821 from Tonghui. They seem to make great equipment like Rigol. TH2821 is their cheapest LCR meter series.

      I, like others, would like to encourage you to do a bench meter review. Fluke, Rigol, Tonghui etc…

      Thanks for 111 great blogs, and many to come!

    • Mike

      I’m From Christchurch, and because of the quake missed the live show. Where I work our building came down, and we spent the week moving. Scary times…….


      • I could joke that it’s every employees dream to watch the company building fall down (a.la Office Space), but in this case I’ll say not.
        Glad you and everyone else are ok, and hope everything gets fixed soon.

    • Hey there Dave,

      Still enjoying the EEVBlog, the live shows are great. Was wondering, though, if there’s any way that you might start using a single camera in the live videos? At the moment, when watching the replay, you often hold things up to the webcam, which isn’t the main camera, and as such it doesn’t get shown. Tres frustrating.


      • I tried to use the one camera, but it failed. So all I had was the backup camera this time, sorry. I could have posted the recorded video, but it was heavily out sync in many places which I found really annoying. Will try and fix it for the next show. I’ll have to do another test run to try another approach.


    • ac

      Well my pessimistic take is that, a lot of the content blog falls into marketing whether paid for or not. And what’s the definition of marketing? BS. It was said earlier on the blog that don’t take his word on anything, use your own brain. He’s just trying to “stir the pot” and see how many live show viewers are eating it all up.

      These live shows are must easily be more fun and easier to do than most of the other content. It’s also very convenient that the live shows aren’t so suited to discussion since the chat scrolls of the screen so quick, you can just rant on any BS you like and any critical response will scroll off the screen just in time so he can avoid trying to answer it.

      The drive time rants were much better since they were focused on single topic and you’d have comment section per topic. Of course there you’d have to think what your stance is on something or it might be stuck around the net forever and come back and haunt you (though pulling video-rant content permanently from the net is a bit easier as it’s not mirrored all over the place that much).

    • FreeThinker

      Hi Dave, Love the blog!

      After Farnells buyup of Eagle RS have responded with This
      Any Chance of a Review/ Tutorial on it’s performance?You cannot be robbed at the price 😉

      • Sorry, a conflict of interest likely prevents me from doing anything with Eagle or DesignSpark.

    • John

      What happened to Todd’s comment?

      • @John,
        We took the conversation off-line. But trust me, our banter is boiling privately.

    • A strctural engineer’s thoughtsu

      Dave- I really enjoy your videos (including this one). Thanks for all your excellent work.

      I thought I might offer some comments on the 9/11 issue. Before going into electronics, I used to be a structural engineer, and I worked in New York for a while at one of the firms that does a lot of large high-profile structures including skyscrapers. I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on 9/11 or on failure analysis, however I know enough to judge the claims of the “architects and engineers for 9/11 truth” group, and let me tell you, they have no idea what they are talking about.

      First of all, they’re not “architects and engineers”, they’re “architects”. I didn’t see a single reference on their site to an engineer, other than a vague one-sentence quote from a “civil engineering student”. In case you don’t know, architecture is a fine-arts degree, like painting or sculpture. There are plenty of smart architects out there, but they have no business offering independent analysis of structural failures. It’s simply not their area of expertise. They would be just as qualified to offer you advice on how to debug your Verilog design.

      Additionally, the guy behind this group barely seems to qualify even as an architect. He promotes himself as “working on” various kinds of projects, but I can’t find a C.V. or portfolio of his work anywhere. Based on his brief, vague bio, and the reference to working on construction documents for what sounds like a shopping mall, my guess is that he is actually a CAD drafter or a guy who reviews documents someone else created, to make sure light switches and doorknobs are in the right place and that the carpet is the right color, etc.

      In and of itself, this doesn’t prove anything. However the “evidence” he is presenting is basically nonsense. The talk of “pyroclastic clouds” and claims that the buildings should have had “large visible deformations” before falling over sideways are idiotic. I don’t even know how to respond to them. Its just gibberish emitted by someone with a high-school level understanding of physics (if that), an unhealthy interest in black helicopters, and too much free time.

      I can understand how a reasonable person might see the video of 7 wtc going down and think that it looked like a demolition. It did. I can also imagine how someone might be suspicious of reports by quasi-governmental agencies like FEMA and NIST. And I can kind of understand why people might suspect the Bush administration of doing some crazy shit, although I think launching an attack on their own country is a pretty big leap of faith. (Even harder to believe is that they could do it so expertly and not get caught, when everything else they touched instantly became a complete cluster-fuck).

      But look, FEMA and NIST are not the only people who have looked at this. Thousands of independent professional engineers and academics have studied this event, and to my knowledge, none of them have supported any of the truther claims. Some of these people were there on 9/11. They lost friends. They had unfettered access to the site in the days after the collapse. Many were outspoken critics of the Bush administration and it’s so-called “war on terror”. Why do you think these people have stayed silent? Are they on the CIA payroll? Are they sheep who simply believe whatever the government tells them? Are they a bunch of incompetent idiots who can’t even watch a video and see the “obvious” evidence of bombs? It doesn’t make any sense. And I’m not speaking abstractly here. I know some of these people and I’m telling you it’s preposterous. These are engineers — nerds, like you and me, not pointy-headed bureaucrats or CIA flunkies. If there was something to find here, they would have found it. I’m not saying they’re perfect or infallible. But they are *far* more credible than this lone truther idiot and his conspiracy-theory buddies.

      I hope you will reconsider your support for this group.

    • Ford

      The US has been using for fluoride in the water supply since the 60’s and I have never heard of anyone having health problems because of it. I have not bothered to read the published reports, but according to wikipedia (for what’s that worth) these results correlate water fluoridation to decreased cavities in children in the US. I think by now we can be pretty sure this is not part of some Communist mind control experiment.

      Can somebody explain this building 7 conspiracy? I am not a structural engineer so I don’t know if these claims are remotely reasonable but there is ZERO reason the US government could or would do this. First, how do you load a large, busy office building with enough explosives to destroy it without anyone noticing AND no disgruntled government employee blowing the whistle?

      Second, why would the the government destroy the building? Doing so would:
      1) Require knowledge of the impending attacks
      2) Allowing the attacks to occur, including the attack on Pentagon
      3) Accepting the death of thousands of Americans and the lost of billions of dollars in damages to the US economy

      This is absurd as saying that we planned the Pearl Harbor attack so we could fight Japan.

    The EEVblog Store generally ships twice a week, on Tuesdays & Fridays, Sydney time. Dismiss