observation · Voltage Intensifier Circuit · computed
Scotchn flex test: no A–B short after removing pin headers and flexing/pressing the windings. The old header termination is now a candidate for the earlier A–B pinning
- Scotchn, Discord #neuralstan20-testing 2026-09-30 — he removed the pin headers, replaced them with longer wire stubs, squeezed and bent all windings and tails, and pressed the windings onto the core on all sides. He "can't get it to short". Together with #3460, there is no mechanical or intermittent short at DMM level.
- New candidate — if the As/Bs (or AF/BF) tails landed on adjacent header pins, flux residue, a solder whisker or tracking between pins could have been the low-impedance or voltage-dependent A–B path behind the pinned start leads, the C-independent split and the ms shunt tail (#3445–#3455, still retracted per #3459). Removing the headers may have removed it.
- Discriminating test — rerun the As→Bs differential capture on the new stubs, same drive (4 V, 20 kHz 50 %, 1 kΩ, C_t 3.97 nF). If u now swings by tens of volts, the headers were the path. If u is still pinned near 0, the headers are cleared and the cause is elsewhere. Also re-read the DMM A↔B with everything lifted (expect OL).
Basis
- Recorded
- Published
- 1 Oct 2026
- Stanbot
- v3
- Source Ref
- Scotchn report, Discord #neuralstan20-testing 2026-09-30; extends #3460
- Notebook Id
- 3461
scotchn bifilar pin-header leakage-path