Re: Freaky Amazing DMM?!
- From: "David L. Jones" <altzone@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:15:20 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 22, 5:57 pm, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altz...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:9f33ec2f-7412-4832-bcb5-
e326c0ad8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
From my side I've only been proposing that high impedance meters can
be a problem, and the solution is using the right tool for the job.
Makes sense but do you concede that understanding the conditions matters more
than the meter?
No need to concede anything, I have never said or meant to imply
otherwise. You might be confusing me with some other poster.
I was just saying that if you need a Low-Z meter it's best to use a
meter designed for the job. It's quicker, it's safer, it's less
hassle, and it's more foolproof. But each to their own.
What matters in wiring that is capacitatively or inductively
coupled but not directly so, is that some kind of light load is placed on the
line, and the voltage measured across that load. Only when that load needs to
be a simple resistance can it be assumed that it is the meter's job to
include it. In all other cases it can be assumed that the meter should tax
the circuit as lightly as possible while analysing an external load chosen to
fit the analysis needed. Which in turn directly implies that in the hands of
someone who knows electricity, especially AC and frequency dependent
behaviour, the high impedance meter is the way to go.
You'll get no argument from me on that at all.
FYI, I can't ever remember needing a Low-Z meter myself in the last 25
years, but I can certainly appreciate those who do have a use for one
and find them very useful.
Dave.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Freaky Amazing DMM?!
- Next by Date: Re: What is a CD4074?
- Previous by thread: Re: Freaky Amazing DMM?!
- Next by thread: Re: Freaky Amazing DMM?!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
