On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:43:31 -0700, Telspam Electronics
wrote in
. com:

On Jul 10, 7:16 pm, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
Such a procedure is pointless unless the assistant is monitoring on
the second and third harmonics.

Frank lives in a black & white world. The real world is gray Frank...
and isn't perfect. I agree that in a perfect world... one would use a
scope to get to the target 100% modulation. In the real gray world...
not everyone has a scope.. and therefore would have to resort to the
next best method... the listening assistant. After all you always talk
about the "empirical" method being so good... are you getting away
from that thinking now?.. lol


I addressed the issues without ranting. I laid out logical arguments
in a clear and concise manner. I used verifiable facts to support my
conclusions. I posted well within the protocol that -YOU- established.
But it's clear that when you are proven wrong all you do is break from
your own protocol and go into a "sour grapes" mode of damage control.
Well, no more clemency for you, Brian. In fact, why don't you go back
to ignoring me again.... it's more fun that way.

You can get an RF probe for just about any DMM. It won't show
waveforms, but it costs a -lot- less than a scope, and in this
application is more accurate. As for a signal generator at the input,
any old audio oscillator will do, even the output of the sound card on
your computer. Just run it through a pot to get the desired voltage.
And the manual will cost you all of $10 on ebay. So you can keep your
scope and your gray world -- I prefer a little more contrast in my
reality, especially when it's easier, more accurate, and a lot less
expensive.

And BTW, I live in Washington, not California. I've stated where I
live about a jillion times since you've been in this group. Learn to
read.