Products > Test Equipment
What's the cheapest 0.02% accuracy handheld meter
<< < (10/16) > >>
miegapele:

--- Quote from: CosteC on July 14, 2023, 02:43:01 pm ---I am puzzled by whole this discussion focusing purely on DCV accuracy. Simplest of all. Long time ago I needed to measure AC current of 400 A 50 Hz with better than 0.5% accuracy. Seems not a lot, but I am pretty sure none of instruments above cannot do it, despite 0.02% "astonishing" accuracy...

What I wanted to say: DCV accuracy is not all that matters.  >:D

--- End quote ---
Long time ago I also needed to measure dog weight, and none of the instruments here can do it, bummer. This is way of topic, but as far as I know, such currents usually are measured with external shunts, and any multimeter mentioned here would work.
CosteC:

--- Quote from: miegapele on July 14, 2023, 03:29:02 pm --- This is way of topic, but as far as I know, such currents usually are measured with external shunts, and any multimeter mentioned here would work.

--- End quote ---
Would it? Shunts rarely provide more than 100 mV. AN870 has 0.3%+3d on 1,9999 VAC range. This means 0.6% error + shunt error, 0.2% for good shunt.
bdunham7:

--- Quote from: miegapele on July 14, 2023, 03:29:02 pm ---Long time ago I also needed to measure dog weight, and none of the instruments here can do it, bummer. This is way of topic, but as far as I know, such currents usually are measured with external shunts, and any multimeter mentioned here would work.

--- End quote ---

CosteC made a good point but just didn't choose the best example to illustrate the issue. 

The Brymen 869S is touted as the cheaper (by 3-4X) alternative to the Fluke 289.  So imagine you need to measure 550VDC as precisely as possible--that's not "dog weight", it is something both meters are rated to do.  The 869S is a "0.02%" meter, better than the "0.025%" 289, right?  But the actual specified uncertainty for the Brymen for this measurement will be more than a volt, whereas for the 289 it will be about a third of that. 
miegapele:

--- Quote from: bdunham7 on July 14, 2023, 04:07:20 pm ---
CosteC made a good point but just didn't choose the best example to illustrate the issue. 

The Brymen 869S is touted as the cheaper (by 3-4X) alternative to the Fluke 289.  So imagine you need to measure 550VDC as precisely as possible--that's not "dog weight", it is something both meters are rated to do.  The 869S is a "0.02%" meter, better than the "0.025%" 289, right?  But the actual specified uncertainty for the Brymen for this measurement will be more than a volt, whereas for the 289 it will be about a third of that.

--- End quote ---
I disagree here, It's just cherry picking points for distraction. 400A is definitely not common. You can probably find some random spec where 0.03% Brymen is better than that 289. Does that mean anything? No.
rfclown:

--- Quote from: Fungus on July 13, 2023, 06:58:21 am ---
--- Quote from: CosteC on July 13, 2023, 06:53:13 am ---I appriciate AN870 declared accuracy, yet I do not trust it too much in long term...

--- End quote ---

Why not? There's not much inside one to go wrong.

It might have a worse tempco than a more expensive meter, or whatever, but I see no reason why it would go out of spec just because of the passage of time.

--- End quote ---

I assume you haven't owned a ANxxx meter. I have a couple. On mine the resistance readings vary wildly with battery contact resistance. To me, the specs mean nothing; they are cheap meters worth what you pay for. If I want a measurement I can trust, I'll use one of my Flukes or HPs. I personally don't have a need for a 0.02% accurate meter, but I do have a need for meters that give me reliable readings... which my ANxxx meters don't do.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod