| 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 |