Best way to measure Watts-

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message
...

I have never defended Tyler Hamilton, merely pointed out that chimeras
do, in fact, exist.

Andy Coggan


and larry craig has a 'wide stance'.

"TM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message
...

I have never defended Tyler Hamilton, merely pointed out that
chimeras
do, in fact, exist.

Andy Coggan


and larry craig has a 'wide stance'.

My read on the previous discussions were about adhering to and defending
the scientific method rather than defending any rider in particular. Of
course, this will always be construed as biased input from
non-scientists (especially lawyers).

Phil H

On Dec 9, 7:43 am, Bill C wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:09 am, wrote:



And I stated that you had an error in your book and you blamed your
editor instead of yourself. I admit when I am incorrect, apparently
you have a problem taking responsibility for yours.

Finding anyone to admit they've made a mistake is rare, getting them
to take responsibility for it is damned near unheard of today. It's
ALWAYS someone else's fault, and if that doesn't work, then it's the
fault of "society".

I see flowers.

There are two factors:
1. /Everyone is wrong most of the time/, so there is a lot of time
saved by not hashing over the obvious.
2. It is easier to lie if you change the meaning of words.

Wrong is right.
Stealing is giving.
Lies are truth.

"War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength."
--- Orwell


But as far as Coggan goes, I think he is more concerned with keeping
his wife calibrated than his book. Is that wrong?

On Dec 7, 11:03 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 7, 10:50 am, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

All meters drift. No one can measure the "true value."

The NIST t&f motherload paper NIST_TechNote1337.pdf convinced me of
that.

1337 is K3WL, D00D. kUN1C# = B1FF !!1!

My rule of thumb: Never calibrate anything twice.
Two power meters are worse than one. If you need to
check a calibration, you need three independent
measurements.

I'm sure you know, but to state it in what I hope is a concise way:
Two meters "agreeing" is actually a statement that the meters have
limited resolution.

Yeah, a better way of saying it would be two meters agreeing
to within X percent. Whether X is larger or smaller than what
you think they ought to ... that's why you bring the third meter.

NIST (and the like) try to do ensembles, IIRC.

Knowing how you love powerpoint and presentations for boneheads (like
me), please see Plate 29:
http://www.freqelec.com/oscillators/...rview_4-07.pdf
(http://www.freqelec.com/oscillators/)

That's good. I like how they used Dick Cheney's targets
both before and after he has a few beers; makes a very
vivid example.

lol. I think if it were that (a Cheney target), then only the second
one would look like a duck, and somewhere off to the side would be "my
friend's face" with some of that nice red ink. Of course, I'm sorta
assumin Dick was not actually aiming at his friend and also unable to
hit a duck. Maybe a "# of beers Dick drank" key would help.