Products > Test Equipment
What's the cheapest 0.02% accuracy handheld meter
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
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version