On 2 Mar 2007 12:14:20 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

On Mar 2, 1:46 am, MassiveProng
wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 19:28:47 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
Gave us:

Laugh....laugh....laugh....emptying trash cans is NOT working in cal
labs and QA.

Said the utter retard that needed to ask in a BASIC electronics
groups about something which he should already know if he planned to
attempt such a procedure.

Nice try, retard boy. Too bad you are wrong.... again.

Hey MiniPrick....you done with the homework assignment yet?

That of calling you the retarded ****head that you are? Sure...
done.

TMT, the total Usenet retard

Yep... that'd be you. Your nym is more correct than you'll ever
know. You're a jack-of-no-trades.

You're a real piece of ****... errr... work, there, bub.

My first advice was spot on. To make a proper cal, the source has
to be ten times better than the accuracy you wish to claim for the
instrument.

NONE of the circuits given in this thread are good enough. ALL of
those IC chips drift with T so much that calling them a cal source is
ludicrous. So are you if you think I don't now quality assurance, and
proper procedure.

You ain't it.

So it sounds like you are having a problem finding two brain cells
MiniPrick...try harder.

No more of your excuses....SHOW us how great you are.

Laugh...laugh...laugh....

TMT

At the end of the day, why do you need to calibrate your instruments?
Do you need to do it, or is it just for self satisfaction? Are your
trying to prove a point or do you need traceable calibaration? What
are you trying to acheive?