Calibratory D-105 DC Precision Voltage Reference Standard

[Cerebus]

I don't want to reproduce the full document. Life is based on trust. People who find it difficult to trust do so because they are untrustworthy.

And there we have it. You say you have all the documentation. Then you offer an excuse for not showing it. When that excuse is demolished, you say "trust me". That is not how honest people behave. You can say what you like, you can claim to be "upright", you can imprecate the character of your critics, but when you wheedle out of every opportunity that is offered to you to substantiate your claims it is, at the very least, highly suspicious.

My original take on you was that you were either naive or inexperienced, then it changed to thinking that you were a little strange and a bit self-deluded and now it has changed again. With your constant twisting and turning to avoid actually answering your critics and sceptics, while still claiming that you have proof, there is now only one reasonable conclusion left, that you are acting deliberately. I believe that you have no proof and you know that the minute you produced what you actually have then the whole house of cards would come tumbling down and you would be publicly revealed for what you are.

[CalMachine]

Just an update: Long term testing indicates 15-month drift to be ~6ppm, and 30-month drift about ~9ppm.

Contrary to what one might imagine, many of my buyers mention this thread and the collection of critics who refuse to even test the device. Apparently the criticism is practically inert. It generates indignation in others, which makes them more prone to purchase from me.

So, thanks for all the free publicity!

I’m one of the critics early on in this thread.

I tell you what. If you send me one I’ll do a fair assessment of it and put it through the paces on a calibrated meter for 30-days. I’ll even send it back if you’d like.

I’ll be completely neutral in the review I give. You’ve literally got nothing to lose.

I really appreciate the offer. But the testing you want to do has already been done many times, by myself and by others. We do recal the units, so we get a pretty good idea of long-term drift.

Any reviewer that wants to be taken seriously cannot allow the manufacturer to know the review is being done. For one thing, the manufacturer might send a hand-picked specimen. For another, unless the reviewer's reputation is valuable it's easy to bribe him. You have nothing to lose if I offered you $500 to fudge the report. But if I have no knowledge the review is being conducted, then it must be an honest review.

So, no offense. It just wouldn't be credible if I sent you a standard to test.

Let's apply your own words here

Your skepticism is a reflection of yourself. Not everyone lies all the time. But it's obviously what you expect, because that's what you would do.

And, most calibration labs have the same policy. We do.

Actually, most cal labs don't care who you show your cert to.   You paid for it.

[Cerebus]

Actually, most cal labs don't care who you show your cert to.   You paid for it.

Moreover, as a traceable cal certificate is there for you to prove traceability, most cal labs would surely be very surprised if you didn't show your cal certificates to lots of people. Being able to produce a cal certificate on demand is kind of the point of having one. It's called a "certificate" for a reason, because an independent entity is certifying the accuracy of your instrumentation.

certify |?s??t?f??|
verb (certifies, certifying, certified) [ with obj. ]
attest or confirm in a formal statement: the profits for the year had been certified by the auditors | [ with clause ] : the Law Society will certify that the sum charged is fair and reasonable.
• chiefly Brit. officially recognize as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards: scenes of violence had to be cut before the film could be certified | (as adj.certified) : a certified accountant.
• officially declare insane.

[Chuckle] I find the final definition there both serendipitous and amusing in the context.

[timb]

Just an update: Long term testing indicates 15-month drift to be ~6ppm, and 30-month drift about ~9ppm.

Contrary to what one might imagine, many of my buyers mention this thread and the collection of critics who refuse to even test the device. Apparently the criticism is practically inert. It generates indignation in others, which makes them more prone to purchase from me.

So, thanks for all the free publicity!

I’m one of the critics early on in this thread.

I tell you what. If you send me one I’ll do a fair assessment of it and put it through the paces on a calibrated meter for 30-days. I’ll even send it back if you’d like.

I’ll be completely neutral in the review I give. You’ve literally got nothing to lose.

I really appreciate the offer. But the testing you want to do has already been done many times, by myself and by others. We do recal the units, so we get a pretty good idea of long-term drift.

Any reviewer that wants to be taken seriously cannot allow the manufacturer to know the review is being done. For one thing, the manufacturer might send a hand-picked specimen. For another, unless the reviewer's reputation is valuable it's easy to bribe him. You have nothing to lose if I offered you $500 to fudge the report. But if I have no knowledge the review is being conducted, then it must be an honest review.

So, no offense. It just wouldn't be credible if I sent you a standard to test.

You just got done telling another poster how honest you are and how you don’t lie or cheat. So if you’re that honest you clearly wouldn’t send a hand picked specimen or try to bribe me, right?

Besides, let’s say you see an order come through from Dave Jones, whom you know is a serious, well respected reviewer of test gear. What’s to stop you from shipping him a hand picked unit? Nothing.

And while it’s true everyone has a price (and I mean everyone, anyone that denies it just isn’t being honest with themselves), for some people that price is pretty high. Besides, as someone who’s been doing electronics and test equipment reviews for magazines and websites for years, I *would* have something to lose if it got out I wrote a fake review for $500. Most other serious reviewers feel the same way. (My reputation is pretty important to me; I wouldn’t compromise it for anything less than 9 figures.)

At any rate, review samples being provided by manufacturers is how the world works. Even the holy grail of impartial reviews, Consumer Reports, doesn’t buy every product they review. (Otherwise they couldn’t afford to review expensive items such as cars.)

This is also how products are reviewed before they are officially released (that includes everything from test gear to computers to cars).

Now, if the publication (or individual) in question runs advertising or sponsored content for a manufacturer of a product they review, I might give a bit less credibility to said reviewer (unless they have a history of not being influenced by their advertising department).

So, I can even swing this back the other way: If I were to pay for your product, out of my own pocket, to review, it would actually be *less* impartial than if you sent me one for free. Why? Cognitive bias. People who shell out money for something don’t want to feel as if they’ve been ripped off, so they will ignore the weak points and problems of something to justify their purchase. They end up convincing themselves the product is great. You see this all the time in the world of high end audio.

When I do reviews, I always tell my readers that a product was provided by the manufacturer for review (and I almost always send the products back or give them away, which I also disclose).

So, no offense but your objections aren’t really reasonable. In fact, it makes me think you’re afraid to have somebody impartially review the unit and are just coming up with BS excuses.

[edavid]

Even the holy grail of impartial reviews, Consumer Reports, doesn’t buy every product they review. (Otherwise they couldn’t afford to review expensive items such as cars.)

Do you have a source for that claim?  A quick search turns up this statement on the CR web site: "It’s worth noting that Consumer Reports doesn’t accept paid advertising or free test samples—and is therefore not swayed by manufacturers."

[erikg]

So, speaking as an amateur relatively new to this forum, and as someone with fairly long experience dealing with technical people (I'm in IT), and internet forums and the typical personality types that inhabit them, I am going to provide a much simplified and shortened summary of the thread below, then my conclusions about the discussion.

For labeling the speaker here I'm going to use "A" for the device manufacturer and "E" for the various board members commenting as a group.

E: "Hey guys, does this Ebay voltage standard look any good?  The specs seem way too good for the price.  I've ordered one to have a look."
E: "I don't think it can work, those specs would be really hard to meet at that price."
E: "I got it and tried it, doesn't seem bad so far... WHOA, LOOK AT THE INSIDES!  THIS GUY IS AN AMATEUR WITH POOR SKILLS!  RIDICULE HIM!"

A: "Hey guys, it does work according to spec.  Thanks for your interest."

E: "Are you kidding me?  You obviously are a kid in your parents' basement, and this thing can't possibly work because X, Y, and Z."

A: "Nope, it does in fact work because it's divinely inspired and the case is filled with (magic) and lots of people like them."

E: "WHAAAaaaaat??!?  You're a scam artist because you don't know how this works and your work is shoddy and you're claiming magic and God when these sorts of things are really all about data sheets and specifications, which we know because we're experts.  You can't solder worth a darn, your design is amateurish, you're a fraud, a scammer, and no one here likes you."

A: "Well, I won't share what I know about how this works because it's a secret, but it does work.  Try it out and see."

E: "NO!  I'm not going to give you money for something Everyone Knows can't possibly work.  You're some kind of idiot whack job.  Look, everyone - see the funny amateur EE guy claiming things in a non standard way!   Isn't his poor soldering skill funny!  Look at his posts about religion and magic!  Everyone laugh!"

E: "I'm gonna make my own version of your product and sell it cheaper to put you out of business!"

A: "God is gonna condemn you guys for acting like this"

E: "Bwahahahahah... sure.   You should start taking some medication, crazy person."

A: "I'm posting some more data here, sorry it's not exactly the proof you requested."

A: "Have you guys tried the device out?  Let's stick to facts here."

E: "Hahahahah the crazy man is back."

(Repeat for many pages).


So in summary, I conclude that Awesome14 is guilty of being a non EE industry person selling a product on Ebay that he doesn't necessarily understand, and which may have over exaggerated specifications for an unusually low price for such a device.  He's also guilty of being a religious person who posts on internet forums, a person who prefers mysticism and religion to scientific explanations and of trampling Internet Expert egos.

On the other side, various members of this board are guilty of behavior unbecoming EE professionals, lack of adherence to scientific method, Internet Flame Warring, condescension, stereotyping and prejudice (against religious people and amateur EE types).  No level of expertise in the subject matter justifies this kind of behavior, period.

If Awesome14 HAD been a kid in his parents' basement and had appropriately kissed ass on certain people here, lots of folks would have patted him on the back.  After all, he's made a business selling a home built electrical device on Ebay that's successful enough that he's selling more than a few products world wide.  Many, many people here would love to build a business doing that.  Sure, his specs are probably exaggerated, but pretty much everyone buying a home built voltage standard on Ebay isn't capable of understanding why they're exaggerated much less being in possession of the equipment to check.  In fact, most of them probably just bought his little box for an occasional sanity check on their voltmeter.

What angers most posters here seems to be that 1) He's not an EE professional 2) He won't take their advice on improvements or changed specs 3) He doesn't follow what the industry considers proper methods for design, manufacture, and claimed specs and prefers a mystical explanation and 4) Most painfully to them he's successful and making money despite all this.

Sure, he's selling a poorly made device with inflated specs on Ebay, but he's far from the only one doing so.

As I read this forum in the future, I'm definitely going to take anything the various abusive posters in this thread say with a huge grain of salt.  Their expertise may be unquestioned, but their character certainly isn't and both *do* matter.

As an amateur EE type reading this forum, that's my view.

[timb]

Even the holy grail of impartial reviews, Consumer Reports, doesn’t buy every product they review. (Otherwise they couldn’t afford to review expensive items such as cars.)

Do you have a source for that claim?  A quick search turns up this statement on the CR web site: "It’s worth noting that Consumer Reports doesn’t accept paid advertising or free test samples—and is therefore not swayed by manufacturers."

Cars and other big ticket items are generally loaned by (and in some cases rented from) dealers. Small appliances (toasters, hair driers, consumer electronics, etc.) and consumable items (batteries, shaving cream, soup, whatever) they buy, and in the latter case from multiple locations across the country through a network of secret shoppers (to rate consistency).

I read this in a behind the scenes article about 15 years ago. You know they even have their own test track for cars?

[timb]

Sure, he's selling a poorly made device with inflated specs on Ebay, but he's far from the only one doing so.

Let me change the context of your statement a little bit:

“Sure, he’s a rapist and a murderer, but it’s not like he’s the *only* one. Therefore we should no longer prosecute these crimes. Right?”

Just because other people do something wrong doesn’t mean the people we catch should be given a pass.

Also, your summary isn’t quite right. People didn’t start making fun of the “manufacturer” until he started spouting all the crazy religious stuff.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing the performance and assembly of a product, which is how the thread started.

And frankly, if you think the way we reacted to Awesome14 was extreme, well, you haven’t been on the Internet very long, because if anything most of the replies were mild and restrained by comparison.

[edavid]

Even the holy grail of impartial reviews, Consumer Reports, doesn’t buy every product they review. (Otherwise they couldn’t afford to review expensive items such as cars.)

Do you have a source for that claim?  A quick search turns up this statement on the CR web site: "It’s worth noting that Consumer Reports doesn’t accept paid advertising or free test samples—and is therefore not swayed by manufacturers."

Cars and other big ticket items are generally loaned by (and in some cases rented from) dealers.

That is not what their web site says:

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars-how-consumer-reports-tests-cars/

"Most automotive publications evaluate cars and trucks lent to them by manufacturers. But we purchase every vehicle we test from a dealership, just like you do."

[timb]

Even the holy grail of impartial reviews, Consumer Reports, doesn’t buy every product they review. (Otherwise they couldn’t afford to review expensive items such as cars.)

Do you have a source for that claim?  A quick search turns up this statement on the CR web site: "It’s worth noting that Consumer Reports doesn’t accept paid advertising or free test samples—and is therefore not swayed by manufacturers."

Cars and other big ticket items are generally loaned by (and in some cases rented from) dealers.

That is not what their web site says:

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars-how-consumer-reports-tests-cars/

"Most automotive publications evaluate cars and trucks lent to them by manufacturers. But we purchase every vehicle we test from a dealership, just like you do."

Well then, I stand corrected. They’ve either changed their policy regarding cars or I’m misremembering. (Though I’m pretty sure it’s the former as I remember discussing it with someone after reading it. I remember details too, like how they had secret shoppers rent vehicles, along with a network of trusted dealers that provided loaners.)

I suppose it makes sense, I’m sure the dealerships wouldn’t appreciate their vehicles coming back with blown shocks after putting a few hundreds miles on over the “washboard” section of a test track. I wonder if they have their own Stig? Hmm...

[erikg]

Let me change the context of your statement a little bit:
“Sure, he’s a rapist and a murderer, but it’s not like he’s the *only* one. Therefore we should no longer prosecute these crimes. Right?”

That's not a valid comparison.  Selling a poorly made product using inflated specs probably doesn't even count as a crime in most places. 

Just because other people do something wrong doesn’t mean the people we catch should be given a pass.

My point here is that you're not just "catching" him, you're taking the opportunity to abuse him because you feel it's ok since he's selling a product you don't feel is any good.  It's trashy, unprofessional, and frankly beneath the standards of behavior I see elsewhere on this forum.  Online bullying and abuse is never ok.

Also, your summary isn’t quite right. People didn’t start making fun of the “manufacturer” until he started spouting all the crazy religious stuff.

That's irrelevant.  There's no excuse for behaving that way even if someone seems crazy or amateurish.  He's not trying to deceive anyone here or do harm to anyone, he's just less experienced and knowledgeable than you are and has some beliefs you don't agree with.

If Dave didn't have rules about it, would you be hanging out in the beginner section abusing newbies?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing the performance and assembly of a product, which is how the thread started.

I agree, but that's also irrelevant since it's not what we're talking about.  For your reference, we're talking about the part after that where people started to call the guy a nut, fraud, or even pledging to put him out of business by undercutting his prices.

And frankly, if you think the way we reacted to Awesome14 was extreme, well, you haven’t been on the Internet very long, because if anything most of the replies were mild and restrained by comparison.

I didn't say it was extreme, I said it was unprofessional and unwarranted.  Also, for the record I've been engaging in discussions online since 1990, so I feel pretty comfortable assessing when someone's being a jerk.

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Snip ...

 I am going to provide a much simplified and shortened summary of the thread below, then my conclusions about the discussion.

For labeling the speaker here I'm going to use "A" for the device manufacturer and "E" for the various board members commenting as a group.

E: "Hey guys, does this Ebay voltage standard look any good?  The specs seem way too good for the price.  I've ordered one to have a look."
E: "I don't think it can work, those specs would be really hard to meet at that price."
E: "I got it and tried it, doesn't seem bad so far... WHOA, LOOK AT THE INSIDES!  THIS GUY IS AN AMATEUR WITH POOR SKILLS!  RIDICULE HIM!"

A: "Hey guys, it does work according to spec.  Thanks for your interest."

E: "Are you kidding me?  You obviously are a kid in your parents' basement, and this thing can't possibly work because X, Y, and Z."

Snip ...

This is a pretty accurate summary of this thread on the EEVblog.

This thread could have gone completely differently IF:

1) The device was built with better workmanship, including a PCB. At the time the thread started you could buy PCBs for a $1.50 each, now they are less.

2) The specifications matched the performance of the parts used. Do not claim that the part is equal to performance of the industry leaders, Fluke 732A/B etc.

3) Questions were answered properly. Example I buy the best grade of the REF102c and then further select the best parts from the lot for the premium references, I sell two grades the best parts are in the premium grades.

4) The datasheet says that the worst drift occurs in the first 168 hours. I take care of this by burning them in.



5) It is difficult to correct the temperature coefficient for the REF102. Here is the datasheet:






6) I suspect that the Calibratory D-105 has some form of tempco adjustment, for the simple reason that the teardown pictures show a thermistor and two pots. I assume that one put is to trim the voltage, the second the tempco.



7) This reply from page 29 of this thread:

Just an update: Long term testing indicates 15-month drift to be ~6ppm, and 30-month drift about ~9ppm.

Contrary to what one might imagine, many of my buyers mention this thread and the collection of critics who refuse to even test the device. Apparently the criticism is practically inert. It generates indignation in others, which makes them more prone to purchase from me.

So, thanks for all the free publicity!

Presents a reasonable number for long term drift, (sample size unknown), after a burn-in period.
Note: that contradicts the information in the eBay listing.



As a minimum the eBay list should be updated.

Note:Although not specified on the TI datasheet drift normal is expressed as ppm per square root of time. Recognizing that the drift reduces with time.

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

This is my 1500th post:

[erikg]

Nice analysis, logical and to the point.

[try]

Note:Although not specified on the TI datasheet drift normal is expressed as ppm per square root of time. Recognizing that the drift reduces with time.

TI left out the square expression on purpose and not by error, I think.
Andreas wrote somewhere on eevblog about an IC reference where the drift rate did not diminish over time.

[zhtoor]

Snip ...

 I am going to provide a much simplified and shortened summary of the thread below, then my conclusions about the discussion.

For labeling the speaker here I'm going to use "A" for the device manufacturer and "E" for the various board members commenting as a group.

E: "Hey guys, does this Ebay voltage standard look any good?  The specs seem way too good for the price.  I've ordered one to have a look."
E: "I don't think it can work, those specs would be really hard to meet at that price."
E: "I got it and tried it, doesn't seem bad so far... WHOA, LOOK AT THE INSIDES!  THIS GUY IS AN AMATEUR WITH POOR SKILLS!  RIDICULE HIM!"

A: "Hey guys, it does work according to spec.  Thanks for your interest."

E: "Are you kidding me?  You obviously are a kid in your parents' basement, and this thing can't possibly work because X, Y, and Z."

Snip ...

This is a pretty accurate summary of this thread on the EEVblog.

This thread could have gone completely differently IF:

1) The device was built with better workmanship, including a PCB. At the time the thread started you could buy PCBs for a $1.50 each, now they are less.

2) The specifications matched the performance of the parts used. Do not claim that the part is equal to performance of the industry leaders, Fluke 732A/B etc.

3) Questions were answered properly. Example I buy the best grade of the REF102c and then further select the best parts from the lot for the premium references, I sell two grades the best parts are in the premium grades.

4) The datasheet says that the worst drift occurs in the first 168 hours. I take care of this by burning them in.



5) It is difficult to correct the temperature coefficient for the REF102. Here is the datasheet:






6) I suspect that the Calibratory D-105 has some form of tempco adjustment, for the simple reason that the teardown pictures show a thermistor and two pots. I assume that one put is to trim the voltage, the second the tempco.



7) This reply from page 29 of this thread:

Just an update: Long term testing indicates 15-month drift to be ~6ppm, and 30-month drift about ~9ppm.

Contrary to what one might imagine, many of my buyers mention this thread and the collection of critics who refuse to even test the device. Apparently the criticism is practically inert. It generates indignation in others, which makes them more prone to purchase from me.

So, thanks for all the free publicity!

Presents a reasonable number for long term drift, (sample size unknown), after a burn-in period.
Note: that contradicts the information in the eBay listing.



As a minimum the eBay list should be updated.

Note:Although not specified on the TI datasheet drift normal is expressed as ppm per square root of time. Recognizing that the drift reduces with time.

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

This is my 1500th post:

hello,

looks like if +ve correction is done between 0 and 25 degC and -ve correction is done between 25 and 50 degC
(via thermister / heatpipe) the net tempco can be improved - at least between 0 and 50 degC.
assuming the zero-crossing is somewhere near 25 degC.


regards and comments required.

[Jay_Diddy_B]

hello,

looks like if +ve correction is done between 0 and 25 degC and -ve correction is done between 25 and 50 degC
(via thermister / heatpipe) the net tempco can be improved - at least between 0 and 50 degC.
assuming the zero-crossing is somewhere near 25 degC.


regards and comments required.

That would be a logical conclusion looking at this graph on the datasheet:



However, the text on the datasheet says: 'the shape of the drift curve is not known' this means that it is not so simple to correct. If the curve was known the manufacturer would correct it internally 

That's one of the points that I am trying to make.

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

[zhtoor]

maybe the reason for not doing so by TI is the temperature range being compromised to 0-50 degC which is all right for volt-nut purposes.

anyways, ref102c should be characterized for tempco and then the decision made on compensation strategy.

regards.

[MK]

The big problem as they would say in Scotland is that Awesome 14 's mouth is all brown and he is away with the fairies, nothing more needs to be added, that construction technique is so awful is is actually funny, worthy of the Marx Brothers, or Buster Keaton get intoduced to a soldering iron...

[retrolefty]

One thinks it's time to put this thread into cold storage. No knowledge is being exchanged.

[Awesome14]

Just an update: Long term testing indicates 15-month drift to be ~6ppm, and 30-month drift about ~9ppm.

Contrary to what one might imagine, many of my buyers mention this thread and the collection of critics who refuse to even test the device. Apparently the criticism is practically inert. It generates indignation in others, which makes them more prone to purchase from me.

So, thanks for all the free publicity!

I’m one of the critics early on in this thread.

I tell you what. If you send me one I’ll do a fair assessment of it and put it through the paces on a calibrated meter for 30-days. I’ll even send it back if you’d like.

I’ll be completely neutral in the review I give. You’ve literally got nothing to lose.

I really appreciate the offer. But the testing you want to do has already been done many times, by myself and by others. We do recal the units, so we get a pretty good idea of long-term drift.

Any reviewer that wants to be taken seriously cannot allow the manufacturer to know the review is being done. For one thing, the manufacturer might send a hand-picked specimen. For another, unless the reviewer's reputation is valuable it's easy to bribe him. You have nothing to lose if I offered you $500 to fudge the report. But if I have no knowledge the review is being conducted, then it must be an honest review.

So, no offense. It just wouldn't be credible if I sent you a standard to test.

You just got done telling another poster how honest you are and how you don’t lie or cheat. So if you’re that honest you clearly wouldn’t send a hand picked specimen or try to bribe me, right?

Besides, let’s say you see an order come through from Dave Jones, whom you know is a serious, well respected reviewer of test gear. What’s to stop you from shipping him a hand picked unit? Nothing.

And while it’s true everyone has a price (and I mean everyone, anyone that denies it just isn’t being honest with themselves), for some people that price is pretty high. Besides, as someone who’s been doing electronics and test equipment reviews for magazines and websites for years, I *would* have something to lose if it got out I wrote a fake review for $500. Most other serious reviewers feel the same way. (My reputation is pretty important to me; I wouldn’t compromise it for anything less than 9 figures.)

At any rate, review samples being provided by manufacturers is how the world works. Even the holy grail of impartial reviews, Consumer Reports, doesn’t buy every product they review. (Otherwise they couldn’t afford to review expensive items such as cars.)

This is also how products are reviewed before they are officially released (that includes everything from test gear to computers to cars).

Now, if the publication (or individual) in question runs advertising or sponsored content for a manufacturer of a product they review, I might give a bit less credibility to said reviewer (unless they have a history of not being influenced by their advertising department).

So, I can even swing this back the other way: If I were to pay for your product, out of my own pocket, to review, it would actually be *less* impartial than if you sent me one for free. Why? Cognitive bias. People who shell out money for something don’t want to feel as if they’ve been ripped off, so they will ignore the weak points and problems of something to justify their purchase. They end up convincing themselves the product is great. You see this all the time in the world of high end audio.

When I do reviews, I always tell my readers that a product was provided by the manufacturer for review (and I almost always send the products back or give them away, which I also disclose).

So, no offense but your objections aren’t really reasonable. In fact, it makes me think you’re afraid to have somebody impartially review the unit and are just coming up with BS excuses.

There have been no less than 20 competent, in depth reviews done by others of our 10V standard, covering from 1 month to two years duration. Since none of them were solicited, I can rely that they are objective, and all of them confirmed my own findings. In order to properly evaluate the device over a 1-month period, you really have to work on the 100mV scale of a meter, which means you need a DC standard like the Fluke 732B. I had one customer complain that the standard was 40uv high, 2ppm out of spec! It turned out later that his 732B had drifted and my standard was actually within spec.

Quite honestly, I don't know you other than from eevblog, and here you mercilessly criticized me without cause, without shame or remorse, so I question your ability to be objective and for different reasons, whether you have the necessary equipment to competently conduct such a test. All of the people in this thread who were able to competently review my product concluded that it lives up to my claims! One person broke theirs, by failing to observe the instructions, and then blamed the device. 

Since my own findings agree with those of others, I'm satisfied. But I'll consider your offer after some thought.

[Awesome14]

"Even though this thread is here, I still get plenty of buyers off eevblog. Now that's saying something!"

It says that there's no such thing as bad publicity 

Consider the remote possibility that it maybe is a lie.
The same with the claims that god was co-designer. Or the customer list.

My latest buyer from here was on 10/9/2017. I encourage you to show some respect for yourself, and not to call others liars without some evidence to substantiate the claim. It's a matter of common decency and etiquette. Do you want others to think you're low class? As a man I have my word. I have not broken it. But you call it into question!

WHY? For several reasons I suppose. I don't reveal exactly how my device works. But I didn't build it as a community project. I'm religious. Yes, my faith is important to me. Yes, I inspire from God. And yes, that makes me exceptional! Ridiculing others for their faith is the mark of poor breeding and upbringing!

I don't ask for help. I didn't come to this thread asking for help. I didn't start the thread. I came to defend my product against warrantless criticism I was informed of by one of my buyers on eBay. I had never heard of eevblog before he gave me the link to this thread, and informed me that it wasn't all positive.

But I will reveal this much: I state I burn in each standard for 70 days. I actually burn them in for 1-2 years. Since  the regulator IC drifts less and less as time progresses, this brings the long-term drift way down from what others observe in their own designs. But as long as I burn them in for at least 70 days, it's perfectly honest.

I will also tell you this: no bare-board voltage reference will ever work well, and this is spelled out in every data sheet. Air currents across the IC pins can create up to 10uV of thermal EMF. Many of the people on this board are attaining poor results simply because of bare-board designs.

Maybe I'll reveal more secrets in the future.

[Awesome14]

OK, I talked to Fluke Calibration. The girl encouraged me to display my cert, even publicly, and even obfuscating personally identifying information. I read the cert again--i guess that speed reading class didn't really pay off--and it says "may not be duplicated, except in full". So, here it is:

[Awesome14]

I don't want to reproduce the full document. Life is based on trust. People who find it difficult to trust do so because they are untrustworthy.

And there we have it. You say you have all the documentation. Then you offer an excuse for not showing it. When that excuse is demolished, you say "trust me". That is not how honest people behave. You can say what you like, you can claim to be "upright", you can imprecate the character of your critics, but when you wheedle out of every opportunity that is offered to you to substantiate your claims it is, at the very least, highly suspicious.

My original take on you was that you were either naive or inexperienced, then it changed to thinking that you were a little strange and a bit self-deluded and now it has changed again. With your constant twisting and turning to avoid actually answering your critics and sceptics, while still claiming that you have proof, there is now only one reasonable conclusion left, that you are acting deliberately. I believe that you have no proof and you know that the minute you produced what you actually have then the whole house of cards would come tumbling down and you would be publicly revealed for what you are.

I actually misread the cert. Since Fluke Calibration encouraged me to display it with personally identifying info obfuscated--which was my actual objection--I have posted it. Don't sell yourself short by selling other people short. All things are pure to the pure, Suspicion is the device of a guilty mind.

I think it is the bare minimum expectation that a calibration lab would have certified standards. I've been honest all my life. I've even gotten myself into trouble because of it. I didn't set out to build voltage standards. I found out about precision reference ICs from a blog post by a hospital tech in Tanzania.

I just wanted something to calibrate  3-1/2 digit meters. I wasn't trying to build anything spectacular. But, I told my father about it, and he tested it. He's a MSEE from Marquette, with 30 years experience. If anyone thinks I'm lying about that, I make a challenge: If I'm not lying, my challenger has to make a video of himself eating his shorts and post it online. If I'm lying, I have to do the same thing. But bear this in mind before calling me a liar again: my Dad is a member of this board, and I'd love to see one of my undeserved critics eat his shorts!

My Dad told me the bare regulator IC was better than a standard cell. So, I took that to mean it was good. I didn't want to make any more standards. I just wanted one for myself. But my Dad wanted one. So, I made another one. All it was was a bare regulator IC inside a box with wires directly off the pins connected to banana sockets set in the enclosure.

So, then I dropped it. I wasn't interested in making any more of them. But my Dad burned his up with reverse polarity on the input. So, I had to make another one, this time with a diode on the input ground. I really didn't see the potential in improving the performance. I was happy as a writer at that time. I played around with electronics projects in my spare time, mainly repair work, but some original projects.

However, my Dad encouraged me to develop a product around the regulator IC. Natively, the IC is 10V +- 0.05%, with 2.5ppm/degreeC drift. I just thought if there was any potential, someone would have exploited it by then. My original aim was +-6ppm at a certain temperature. That worked, but it was nothing to write home about. A lot of people bought those. They were cheap.

But my Dad thought the product could be better. We even got into a shouting match. But it turned out he was right. I was relying on the last digit of a DMM to estimate the stability of the IC, which gave the illusion that it wasn't very stable. But I bought a higher precision meter, and I found that the IC was much more stable than predicted.

So, my aims at that point were temperature compensation and long-term drift. I say I inspired the design from God, but I actually only inspired a part of the TC from God. Maybe it just came to me in a creative moment. It all depends on how you look at it.

The TC circuit simply varies the gain on the output with temperature, in the opposite direction the regulator IC drifts with temperature. One of the difficulties the people on this board run into is attempting to design a standard that will maintain accuracy under harsh environmental conditions. Another difficulty I see is failure to invest sufficient capital, effort and time.

R&D is no place to scrimp. I still have to find a PCB design that works, but I can hardly be blamed for making my instrument by hand, which costs 3x as much as prefab. People are actually getting more for their money. And, most buyers don't really care, as long as it works.

I'm making a guarantee. If one of our standards ever fails, it can be sent back for inspection. If it is determined that the failure was a result of faulty soldering, the user gets a free repair and recal. But none so far have failed that I'm aware of.

So, when everyone else my age was out partying and having fun, I was hold up in my shop doing R&D. I tried 113 designs before I found one that worked well. I am very concerned with maintaining an accurate volt. No one should falsify the volt, or any other standard. It costs me a lot to maintain certified standards.

The cert I posted on 10/20/2017 cost almost 800.00USD, and even more if you include shipping. I make about 6,000.00USD/yr selling standards. If I quit tomorrow I wouldn't miss it. But I fill an important void in the marketplace. Many of my buyers pay me great respect for my product. And I'd like to pass the business to my son someday.

For my critics on this board, I'm not the problem. I have been nothing but honest and forthright. When the world gets to the point  that no evidence is required to impugn the upright, it is a very dangerous time indeed. No one is safe, because if it can happen to one person, it can happen to anyone.

I have now posted to this thread not one but two cal certs. If that isn't enough to make my unearned critics blush, they have not the wisdom to be embarrassed.

[Awesome14]

OK, I took some advice from that IT guy who summed up the thread. Why does my standard outperform the raw regulator IC? It's all in the datasheet, if anyone actually read the whole thing. Long-term drift: the IC is aged 1-2 years. That brings the drift way down. We age the entire assembly, so any other components that experience long-term drift benefit.

Why is the temp drift lower than the raw IC? A 100kohm NGT is wired into the trim circuit. When the temp rises, the resistance drops, and the output gain is decreased. The IC drifts up with temperature, so it evens out.

But that's not enough. Because the thermistor has to be a bit different for each individual IC, because temp drift is not constant between specimens. The manufacturer rates temp drift over a huge range. I'm only concerned with 17-26C. The drift is fairly flat there, and so is the NGT.

A pot used as a rheostat in parallel with the thermistor adjusts the resistance delta of the thermistor with temperature, which is all we really care about (how much does it change). It is the quantity of change that determines how much the TC compensates the output gain.

The absolute resistance in the TC circuit is not critical. By adjusting the rheostat, the resistance delta of the NGT decreases or increases with temp, giving less or more tempco. The copper heat pipe keeps the delta temp similar between the IC and the NGT.

Without it, calibration of the tempco would not be possible. The device would oscillate because of the tempco. The exact thickness of the heat pipe is critical. If it's too thin, it doesn't transfer enough heat. If it's too thick, it acts as a heat sink, which throws off the thermodynamic balance of the entire assembly.

Unlike that other guy who made the standards and then quit, I have a much faster way to test the tempco. Then, I only require the environmental chamber to test the final result.

Why is it so cheap? I am not ambitious. I make 1500% profit on the parts, after eBay and Paypal fees. I don't need to sell them for more! I'd feel guilty!

How can you do what no one else seems to be able to do for the price? I persist, I believe in myself, and I apply scientific principles in new ways. That's it. And, I received much welcome advice from a very intelligent MSEE, without whom the entire project would have failed.

No one is going to get a surprising result unless they try something new.

Why is the soldering so bad? Because it's made with a perf board. There are no solder pads. With traces I get stray capacitance, which causes oscillation.

How can you make such exaggerated claims? A: How would anyone know my claims are exaggerated if they haven't tested the device?

Why are you such an idiot? Well, I truly know nothing. But my IQ is a standard deviation of 4 from the mean. I don't consider myself intelligent. But compared to other humans I guess I am.

How can you show your face on eevblog? I have nothing to be ashamed of. I can show my face anywhere. I'd prefer to make a product that works right with bad soldering than one that has neat solder joints and doesn't work.

Why are your long-term drift figures so unbelievable? I just age the ICs for a long time.

How can you claim +-2ppm accuracy? I make the claims that are justified by experimental evidence. I haven't been able to get +-1ppm accuracy. So, I stick with +-2ppm.

Do you have any new specs? Yes, thank you for asking. Typical standard deviation of the output of 250 samples at 100PLC is 500nV. That means 99% of the readings are within 1.5uV of each other.

If you are willing to spend 800.00USD on a calibration from Fluke Calibration, why do scam everyone? I don't think anyone who intends to scam actually requires certified instruments. 

Why did you allow everyone to call you a liar, and only after that post the cal cert? To piss you off!

Why don't you just leave us to our prejudices? Because ignorant is no way to go through life. I see a lot of technical skills on this board, but that's about where it ends. A man is measured by the kindness he displays to others.

Why is your design so stable? Mostly because I put it in a box. That prevents changes in thermal EMF caused by air currents across the IC pins. Read the datasheet!

Why should we accept you here? You have the mind of a child! I'm not asking for acceptance. I could never hope to attain unto the examples set by the other members on this board. I'd be happy if you just based your criticisms on experimental evidence rather than idle speculation. I mean, you use experimental evidence in every other area.

Are you mentally ill? I'm a creative genius. Mental illness seems to go along with that quite frequently. My prose  have been compared to those of James Joyce and Virginia Woolf, two authors who were considered by many to be mad.

[Awesome14]

The big problem as they would say in Scotland is that Awesome 14 's mouth is all brown and he is away with the fairies, nothing more needs to be added, that construction technique is so awful is is actually funny, worthy of the Marx Brothers, or Buster Keaton get intoduced to a soldering iron...

I'll tell you what. I'll ship you the parts to make the board, and you show the community how much better you can do!