On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:18 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > Even if fraud is highly unlikely, didn't Essen make a technically erroneous > claim?
Essen does seem to infer that the symmetry of the displayed waveform implies no DC offset, which would be a false conclusion IF the instrument's alleged DC-insensitivity is established; at this point it's only some blogger's single sentence report of what a (sales guy?) claimed to him. A proper characterization of the instrument would be needed. Now Essen et al's wording is sufficiently vague that they might have checked for DC offsets using other means. -- Berke Durak
