| Author |
Message |
Robert Baer
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:38 am Post subject:
Re: true RMS meter vs. oscilloscope |
|
|
mike wrote:
| Quote: | Robert Baer wrote:
mike wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
phillip.liu@fphcare.co.nz wrote:
Hi, I am trying to measure the rms voltage for a slightly distorted AC
sine waveform. I used a "True RMS" multimeter as well as an
oscilloscope. Expecting both rms readings to be the same, but
different. Any idea why? Thanks.
Using the scope, one can only measure the peak or peak-to-peak
voltage, then convert to RMS.
Not any different than the way AC scales on most DVMs are
implimented.
I must be confused...cause he said he used a "True RMS" meter. A
True RMS meter, by definition, measures the RMS value of the
waveform. If the waveform is only "slightly distorted", a TRUE RMS
meter should measure within the specs of the meter.
I don't know about your scope, but mine has a button that calculates the
RMS value of the waveform. I didn't bother to look up the accuracy
spec.
It would be interesting to know the exact equipment used and the
magnitude of the discrepancy.
One common source of such problems is DC offset of the AC waveform.
mike
You are fortunate to have the "read in RMS" option on your scope.
But, i bet that it works by measuring peak or Peak-to-peak and
converting that to RMS.
OK, what are you betting? Send it to me.
It's a TEK TDS540. Suppose one could look up the spec. It can do FFT;
it's hard to imagine they'd not do a proper RMS calculation.
mike
NOW i know something i did not previously: what make and model of the |
scope.
Since it digitizes, then it could calculate energy of each sample and
thus the equivalent RMS value.
If one waveform was converted this way, and if there were (say) 8
bits per sample, then about 3 bits would be used for the + half and 3
bits for the - half and one for zero; this is a bit (no pun inended)
better than measuring a peak (or Pk-Pk) and converting.
Higher bit resolution would tend toward better accuracy for complex
waveforms.
Still, no where as good as using the thermal method...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Baer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:41 am Post subject:
Re: true RMS meter vs. oscilloscope |
|
|
phillip.liu@fphcare.co.nz wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Dave,
It is a 50Hz 22V rms AC sinewave.
The rms reading from my HP54600b can be upto 5% larger comparing with
my Fluke 45 meter.
I assumed that a scope would prove a more accurate true RMS reading.
Have I made a wrong assumption?
regards
Phillip
Unless the A/D of the scope has more resolution than the HP or Fluke, |
expect less accuracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CJT
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:37 am Post subject:
Re: true RMS meter vs. oscilloscope |
|
|
Robert Baer wrote:
| Quote: | phillip.liu@fphcare.co.nz wrote:
Hi Dave,
It is a 50Hz 22V rms AC sinewave.
The rms reading from my HP54600b can be upto 5% larger comparing with
my Fluke 45 meter.
I assumed that a scope would prove a more accurate true RMS reading.
Have I made a wrong assumption?
regards
Phillip
Unless the A/D of the scope has more resolution than the HP or Fluke,
expect less accuracy.
|
Resolution and accuracy are different things.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mike
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:35 am Post subject:
Re: true RMS meter vs. oscilloscope |
|
|
Robert Baer wrote:
| Quote: | mike wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
mike wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
phillip.liu@fphcare.co.nz wrote:
Hi, I am trying to measure the rms voltage for a slightly
distorted AC
sine waveform. I used a "True RMS" multimeter as well as an
oscilloscope. Expecting both rms readings to be the same, but
different. Any idea why? Thanks.
Using the scope, one can only measure the peak or peak-to-peak
voltage, then convert to RMS.
Not any different than the way AC scales on most DVMs are
implimented.
I must be confused...cause he said he used a "True RMS" meter. A
True RMS meter, by definition, measures the RMS value of the
waveform. If the waveform is only "slightly distorted", a TRUE RMS
meter should measure within the specs of the meter.
I don't know about your scope, but mine has a button that calculates
the
RMS value of the waveform. I didn't bother to look up the accuracy
spec.
It would be interesting to know the exact equipment used and the
magnitude of the discrepancy.
One common source of such problems is DC offset of the AC waveform.
mike
You are fortunate to have the "read in RMS" option on your scope.
But, i bet that it works by measuring peak or Peak-to-peak and
converting that to RMS.
OK, what are you betting? Send it to me.
It's a TEK TDS540. Suppose one could look up the spec. It can do FFT;
it's hard to imagine they'd not do a proper RMS calculation.
mike
NOW i know something i did not previously: what make and model of the
scope.
Since it digitizes, then it could calculate energy of each sample and
thus the equivalent RMS value.
If one waveform was converted this way, and if there were (say) 8 bits
per sample, then about 3 bits would be used for the + half and 3 bits
for the - half and one for zero; this is a bit (no pun inended) better
than measuring a peak (or Pk-Pk) and converting.
Higher bit resolution would tend toward better accuracy for complex
waveforms.
Still, no where as good as using the thermal method...
|
This is going from funny to sad. Half of 8 bits is 7 bits.
Nowhere as good as the thermal method at the NIST...but probably on par
with a typical cheap commercial thermal rms converter.
mike
--
Wanted, Serial cable for Dell Axim X5 PDA.
FS 512MB 45X SD Flash memory.
Return address is VALID but some sites block emails
with links. Delete this sig when replying.
FS 500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 Make Offer
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
MAKE THE OBVIOUS CHANGES TO THE LINK
ht<removethis>tp://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thomas Hejl
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:56 pm Post subject:
Re: true RMS meter vs. oscilloscope |
|
|
<phillip.liu@fphcare.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1126843222.864518.111090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Hi, I am trying to measure the rms voltage for a slightly distorted AC
sine waveform. I used a "True RMS" multimeter as well as an
oscilloscope. Expecting both rms readings to be the same, but
different. Any idea why? Thanks.
|
Agilent published a few white papers on the subject. In particular they
pertained to DMM and RMS issues. The items from Agilent are: "Application
Note AN 1389-3" and "Application Note 1392". Hopefully they may explain the
difference from the DMM and the oscilloscope.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Nichols
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:05 pm Post subject:
Re: true RMS meter vs. oscilloscope |
|
|
In article <KsGdndg2Jf3tA7DeRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
<normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
:
:Which waveform has the greatest discrepancy between average and rms values?
Presuming that you're thinking of unipolar waveforms, that would be a
train of narrow rectangular pulses rising above a zero baseline. The
ratio of average to RMS is the square root of the duty cycle, so the
ratio Vrms/Vavg goes toward infinity as the duty cycle approaches zero.
--
Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "rnichols42" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Baer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:35 am Post subject:
Re: true RMS meter vs. oscilloscope |
|
|
mike wrote:
| Quote: | Robert Baer wrote:
mike wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
mike wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
phillip.liu@fphcare.co.nz wrote:
Hi, I am trying to measure the rms voltage for a slightly
distorted AC
sine waveform. I used a "True RMS" multimeter as well as an
oscilloscope. Expecting both rms readings to be the same, but
different. Any idea why? Thanks.
Using the scope, one can only measure the peak or peak-to-peak
voltage, then convert to RMS.
Not any different than the way AC scales on most DVMs are
implimented.
I must be confused...cause he said he used a "True RMS" meter. A
True RMS meter, by definition, measures the RMS value of the
waveform. If the waveform is only "slightly distorted", a TRUE RMS
meter should measure within the specs of the meter.
I don't know about your scope, but mine has a button that
calculates the
RMS value of the waveform. I didn't bother to look up the accuracy
spec.
It would be interesting to know the exact equipment used and the
magnitude of the discrepancy.
One common source of such problems is DC offset of the AC waveform.
mike
You are fortunate to have the "read in RMS" option on your scope.
But, i bet that it works by measuring peak or Peak-to-peak and
converting that to RMS.
OK, what are you betting? Send it to me.
It's a TEK TDS540. Suppose one could look up the spec. It can do FFT;
it's hard to imagine they'd not do a proper RMS calculation.
mike
NOW i know something i did not previously: what make and model of
the scope.
Since it digitizes, then it could calculate energy of each sample
and thus the equivalent RMS value.
If one waveform was converted this way, and if there were (say) 8
bits per sample, then about 3 bits would be used for the + half and 3
bits for the - half and one for zero; this is a bit (no pun inended)
better than measuring a peak (or Pk-Pk) and converting.
Higher bit resolution would tend toward better accuracy for complex
waveforms.
Still, no where as good as using the thermal method...
This is going from funny to sad. Half of 8 bits is 7 bits.
Nowhere as good as the thermal method at the NIST...but probably on par
with a typical cheap commercial thermal rms converter.
mike
The best "cheap commercial RMS converters" are ICs that do a superb |
job, and i think some get fairly close to what NIST does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in