gas cylinder meters for divers or for other cylinders. Also fire extinguisher displays tend to be analogue. There may be digital alternatives but I don't think you need precision here. You just want a basic and reliable system that can work for long periods of time with zero maintenance. Just tap the dial and read the needle position?
I think it's more about "doesn't need batteries.
Why use an analogue multimeter?
Analogue multimeters are more commonly used where a more precise reading is needed. Whereas a digital multimeter will round up the amount being tested, an analogue multimeter will show you on the scale where the measurement lies.
Analog is not a legacy visualisation format. Digital wristwatches came and went. Only a few retro-grouches (Dave?) still wear them.
I was watching one of Dave's videos and while scanning all the equipment behind him I noticed everything is digital except for one unit which has an analog panel meter (shown just to his right in the attached screenshot). I thought modern digital displays are preferred for a variety of reasons and the analog display is a legacy visualization format. Is there any special case where analog meters are preferred?That looks like a power supply Dave would have made up from a kit. It looks to be from the Feb 1987 issue of Electronics Australia magazine. It could be the 1982 version mentioned in the article but I don't have that issue. Digital panel meters were not readily available back then whereas analog meters were common as. Also they were cheaper.
How many people wear wrist watches these days?
Analog is not a legacy visualisation format. Digital wristwatches came and went. Only a few retro-grouches (Dave?) still wear them.How many people wear wrist watches these days?
And even an analogue display watch is no longer really analogue. It has a quartz oscillator and digital divider with some digital compensation to improve the accuracy. True analogue watches went out of fashion many decades ago.
Let's not confuse the timekeeping mechanism with the display. And for that anyway the mechanical watch mechanism has an escapment (ie the tick-tock) which flips back and forth to drive the gears in a sequence of discrete movements. But drilling down to such a scale gets us away from the human level and into semantics about just what is analogue and what is digital.
Analog is not a legacy visualisation format. Digital wristwatches came and went. Only a few retro-grouches (Dave?) still wear them.How many people wear wrist watches these days?
And even an analogue display watch is no longer really analogue. It has a quartz oscillator and digital divider with some digital compensation to improve the accuracy. True analogue watches went out of fashion many decades ago.
Let's not confuse the timekeeping mechanism with the display. And for that anyway the mechanical watch mechanism has an escapment (ie the tick-tock) which flips back and forth to drive the gears in a sequence of discrete movements. But drilling down to such a scale gets us away from the human level and into semantics about just what is analogue and what is digital.Yes, you are correct and if you look at the speedometer on a car's dashboard, it has a analogue display but the electronics are digital.
an analogue multimeter will show you on the scale where the measurement lies.
Indeed. The only meters I've blown up are due to human error, both analogue and digital.
Incidentally the analogue one was the only repairable one thanks to the protection diodes across the movement.
Once I needed a current meter for a test setup. I did not have enough meters, so I used an old analog meter. It was then we saw there was a giant oscillation on the current signal (like 100%). The digital meters just showed the RMS value that was stable.
Sigh. If it is sufficient for you to be looking out of the corner of your eye, clearly [sic] high precision isn't relevant. Hence neither is your point.
My point is, the needle is harder to see, either straight-on or "out the corner of my eye". And yours is...? That it doesn't really matter because the precision isn't relevant anyway so it's... better? I'm lost
Sigh. If it is sufficient for you to be looking out of the corner of your eye, clearly [sic] high precision isn't relevant. Hence neither is your point.
My point is, the needle is harder to see, either straight-on or "out the corner of my eye". And yours is...? That it doesn't really matter because the precision isn't relevant anyway so it's... better? I'm lost
Might be true...if you're measuring several things that are supposed to give the same reading (eg. a line of identical resistors). After you see a couple of readings on an analog meter you sort of get an idea of how the needle is supposed to move for that value of resistor. The rest of the readings will be quite fast.
Analog is not a legacy visualisation format. Digital wristwatches came and went. Only a few retro-grouches (Dave?) still wear them.How many people wear wrist watches these days?
And even an analogue display watch is no longer really analogue. It has a quartz oscillator and digital divider with some digital compensation to improve the accuracy. True analogue watches went out of fashion many decades ago.
Let's not confuse the timekeeping mechanism with the display. And for that anyway the mechanical watch mechanism has an escapment (ie the tick-tock) which flips back and forth to drive the gears in a sequence of discrete movements. But drilling down to such a scale gets us away from the human level and into semantics about just what is analogue and what is digital.Yes, you are correct and if you look at the speedometer on a car's dashboard, it has a analogue display but the electronics are digital.
Sigh. The question is about analogue meters (e.g. moving needles, or spots of light etc) vs digital meters (e.g. LEDs in the shape of numbers "1.2345", or dekatrons etc). The discussion is not about what is driving the meter. Hence your point, while correct, is irrelevant to the discussion and is (deliberately?) obtuse and confusing.
If you really want to go down your unhelpful path, why don't you just skip to the logical endpoint that "all electronics is digital, in units of one electron (or one photon )".
I have noticed some analog movements are over-damped (slow) and seem to require tapping the meter face to get a good final reading. Others are faster but overshoot and require at least two or three "cycles" to settle down. A good taut-band seems to go right to the desired final reading quickly and with practically no over-or-undershoot. My Bach-Simpson 635 is really good like this. I think my 270 was also - but it's packed away right now and I'm not positive...
I have noticed some analog movements are over-damped (slow) and seem to require tapping the meter face to get a good final reading. Others are faster but overshoot and require at least two or three "cycles" to settle down. A good taut-band seems to go right to the desired final reading quickly and with practically no over-or-undershoot. My Bach-Simpson 635 is really good like this. I think my 270 was also - but it's packed away right now and I'm not positive...It's very likely the quality of the movement has the most influence and how well it's sealed from contaminants.
Google for AVO service manuals and you'll see the trouble they insist you go to to prevent dust getting into a movement when serviced to ensure trouble free operation.
Much like a POS display on a modern instrument makes it a drag to work with so it is a for poor movement in a analogue meter, whatever it may measure.
All the aircraft I've piloted. And some of them are so "high-tech" that their construction techniques are only just beginning to make it into commercial airliners.
Well, I haven't piloted any. I've only been to four cockpits and only one of them: Antonov AN-2 was "100% analog" (you know, the bi-plane one). Boeing 747 used combination of analog and steampunky CRTs. Not sure if it's in service anymore. Last time it was Bombardier CRJ-900 and you're more than welcome to point all this analog stuff to me, please because I have trouble spotting it:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=F2AEECE214DB131B!10837&authkey=!APtoY7Yrn7BKj1o&v=3&ithint=photo%2cJPG
I can't view yout picture, but there is a picture, from the internet, of the Bombardiers CRJ-900ER NG (CL-600-2D24) cockpit while landing.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/3/8/1855838.jpg
There are at least 9 analog displays...