View Single Post
  #238   Report Post  
Old November 6th 03, 06:00 PM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 06 Nov 2003 15:52:29 GMT, oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
I explained that your previous posting was based on wrong assumptions (not
reading carefully the threads?) - the 100mA on 8A meter, measurement
techniques, etc.


Hi Yuri,

This, above, is exactly my complaint and it illustrates how you are
projecting your problem on me. It is you who is not reading carefully
because you did not respond to the issues, but rather injected this
specious comment.

I responded specifically to 100mA, I responded specifically to 8A, I
responded to how you are going to lose accuracy through scaling, I
responded specifically to how you could approach that, I responded
directly to what it would demand. You answered NONE of these
technical issues and instead made this lame complaint above. You left
me to speculate about the model - NO RESPONSE to that either. You
left me to speculate about drive level - NO RESPONSE to that either.
You describe the enormous heat issues that come with these
characteristics that have been UNRESPONDED to. Instead you dismiss
the issue of heat in the same breath as applied to a caloric based
measuring device as:
nitpicking in the .01 area of significance

Which is unsupported by any data. Obviously you find it simpler to
reject than to investigate. This is the class of argument you decry
coming from Tom, but it is consistent with the class of sneer review
common in this forum.

As I stated, please insert the stage directions [applause here] for
your scripting if you are not going to respond to the technical
comments.

What is the program? If you prefer (as shown by your more than single
participation in) these ethereal speculations of how to measure a real
infinitesimal component (a contradiction on the face of it); then
please for the sake of truth in labeling also mark your postings as
being "for entertainment only."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC