At 10:52 5/14/99 -0700, Brent Christensen wrote:
>That pattern is similar to the readings I got as well.  David Beierl and I
>have been corresponding off-line, and based on his apparently considerable
>expertise in electronics,

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all
of the time... <g>.  I'm a pretty good tinker.

>  he has suggested that the LED panel is very
>sensitive to the readings that the wand gives off, and that the wand has
>gone outside of the normal spec due to age, etc.

Well...maybe the sender, maybe the voltage divider on the LED panel, maybe
the match btw them was marginal to begin with.

>   He believes that the LED
>panel can be modified by changing some resistors in order to make it more
>tolerant of the varying impedance levels.  Another suggestion he made, which
>I thought was a great idea, was to replace the existing LED's with brighter
>versions so that they will be visible in daylight.
>
>David, I'll let you add anything you feel is appropriate.

If you do as I did and tinker with the flame detector to expand the range
of brightness, then add a second fixed LED to compare against the other,
f'gawds sake put them right next to each other even though it's more
convenient to put the second one in the other row.  Been driving me nuts
ever since trying to compare those two when they're three inches apart.

<g>
d

David Beierl - dbeierl@ibm.net