Re: Calibration Of Electronic Equipment In The Home Workshop

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 04:23:21 -0600, "Anthony Fremont" Gave us:

A calibration house would NOT use a 0.03% DMM to calibrate your scope with, you pathetic piece of shit!

What part of that proves that you are a brainless, pathetic piece of shit do you not understand?

Fuck you. I read the thread. It doesn't matter who the author is, and when it is you, you retarded f*ck, it becomes glaringly obvious due to your total stupidity. Just like the "E-1 grade tech" remark. You prove with your every post that it is you that is an incompetent bastard.

Fuck you. It is you that lacks the basic understanding that errors chain together.

NOPE.

Did I say they would? I said I would tweak it myself and that it would be good enough. Stay on track, you're here to prove why it won't work.

Is that an apology? Where are your scematics and submissions?

Show one post where I demonstrated that I don't understand that. You can't.

The problem here is that you read something and then, in your twisted little way, you interpret it as the poster is stupid and then you go off on some totaly different train of thought. Like Don Quixote you then procede to fight a battle against an illusion. You then begin to see every response as though it's calling you a liar, even if they are just trying to put you back on track. Many of your comments were valid, but they weren't germane to the discussion at that point, just like the one you just made here.

You make it sound like the OP was going to cal some critical lab equipment at home and that lives were at stake. Then you go on to tout calibrating your home theater by using a DVD/CD. And that's fine for home theater, but for lab quality work (like you constantly brag about, and compare everything to) considering the use of a signal from a CD is just F*CKING STUPID!!! 1Hz accuracy would be atrocious and you know that very well.

Now tell us why not? Exactly what kind of standard is required to adjust a scope's vertical response to 3% as it's specs state? And why wouldn't a .03% meter with traceable certs be good enough? I'm not saying it isn't, since I never even visited a cal lab, much less worked in one. I just want to hear your expert opinion on what is required.

You need to understand the concept of ACCEPTABLE ERROR, there is no perfection only "good enough". What is "good enough" is in the eye of the beholder, not yours.

Read him like book!

I don't think it's any use, after all MassiveProng didn't know that modern scopes still only have a few percent vertical accuracy, so obviously he's not quite up to speed on all this low precision stuff :-

Perhaps that nameless 4 channel 100MHz scope of his has some astonishing vertical accuracy?

Dave :)

On 4 Mar 2007 17:15:16 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools" Gave us:

You have proven nothing, you top posting Usenet retard!

When you see a crime committed you let someone know, asshole. Until then shut the f*ck up, you retarded twit.

Yes, you.

On 5 Mar 2007 01:46:21 -0800, "David L. Jones" Gave us:

Said the total retard that then proceeded to tell us all about his 2% scope.

Ooops.

2% ain't too bad in the scope world, didn't you know? - oh that's right, you didn't know! LMAO!

We are all still anxiously awaiting your link to a scope that does better than a percent or two on the vertical... What's the matter, your frantic Google search failed you? Come on, there has to be at least one out there surely, try harder...

Dave :)

It's considered polite to bathe regularly enough to deter open sores erupting across your flesh before making such requests.

HTH.