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