Full wave voltage reading

[Bob Engelhardt]

If I measure a full wave voltage with a non true-RMS common variety
DMM*, will it be off by a known factor, from the true RMS value?

Or is there a rule of thumb about the error. E.g., the reading will be
high by about 10%.

Thanks,
Bob

* - Extech Ex320 if it matters

[John Robertson]

Typically these inexpensive digital meters are only fairly accurate for
60 or 50 Hz sine wave AC voltages. The further away from 50/60 Hz and/or
true sine wave you get the worse the reading accuracy...

Here is a good explanation:

http://sound.whsites.net/appnotes/an012.htm

I'd use a 'scope and do the math if the readings are critical and you
can't afford a proper AC meter

John :-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd.
MOVED to #7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3
(604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

[Bob Engelhardt]

On 7/8/2019 10:56 AM, John Robertson wrote:
>...

> I'd use a 'scope and do the math if the readings are critical and you
> can't afford a proper AC meter

The readings aren't at all critical - a single-digit correction factor
would be good enough.

I wonder if the meter reading has a consistent relationship to the RMS
value. E.g., if the meter always used the peak value, the actual value
would simply be 0.7 the read value. If it was consistent, I could
calculate the correction factor by measuring the peak on a scope. But I
wouldn't want to have to generate correction curves.

[Phil Hobbs]

Depends. If it reads the peaks, it'll be high by a factor of sqrt(2).

If it reads the mean, it'll read 2/pi times the peak value, which is low
by a factor 2*sqrt(2)/pi = 0.9003. So 10% is right in that case,
except that it would read low.

Of course it could do some random third thing instead.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

[Look165]

I got a problem measuring efficienty on an SMPS unit.

The meter I used was indicating about 50% which was absurd.
I brought my personal old analog meter, it said about 85% !
That's why I don't like todays's meters.

[Phil Allison]

Bob Engelhardt wrote:

----------------------

>
>
> If I measure a full wave voltage

** I wish folk would use correct terminology and not private shorthand.

Do you mean " full wave RECTIFIED voltage" or not ???

> with a non true-RMS common variety
> DMM*, will it be off by a known factor, from the true RMS value?

** Standard DDMs take the average, AC coupled rectified value and scale to coincide with the rms value for sine waves

For any other wave there is an inherent error and the DC component is missed with rectified waves etc.

Try explaining what you are actually doing instead of being too clever.


..... Phil

[Bob Engelhardt]

On 7/8/2019 5:23 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> Bob Engelhardt wrote:
>
> ----------------------
>>
>>
>> If I measure a full wave voltage
>
> ** I wish folk would use correct terminology and not private shorthand.
>
> Do you mean " full wave RECTIFIED voltage" or not ???
>

...

Sorry for the offense. I thought that it was obvious & didn't know that
there was any other kind. What other kind of full wave is there, other
than full wave rectified?

[Bob Engelhardt]

Oh, wait ... the light dawns. The DC that I'm trying to measure is the
output of a bridge. It's RMS value will just be the RMS value of the AC
input, less 2 diode drops. Unless I'm missing something ... not unheard of.

[Phil Allison]

Bob Engelhardt wrote:

>

> >>
> >> If I measure a full wave voltage
> >
> > ** I wish folk would use correct terminology and not private shorthand.
> >
> > Do you mean " full wave RECTIFIED voltage" or not ???
> >
> ...
>
> Sorry for the offense. I thought that it was obvious & didn't know that
> there was any other kind.

** A full wave voltage is any continuous wave.

Rectified waves are single polarity - big difference.



.... Phil

[Phil Allison]

** Now you are thinking well into the problem.

The rms value is the equivalent heating effect of a wave expressed as a number.

So, the addition of a bridge between an AC supply and it's load has little effect on the heat in that load except for losses in the bridge.

Ergo, nearly the same rms value.


.... Phil

[Phil Hobbs]

On 7/8/19 2:04 PM, Look165 wrote:
> I got a problem measuring efficienty on an SMPS unit.
>
> The meter I used was indicating about 50% which was absurd.
> I brought my personal old analog meter, it said about 85% !
> That's why I don't like todays's meters.

You can get a true-RMS meter for way under $50.

[Look165]

NO ; with today's DMM the value is only true with sine wave.
Some use triangular signal, other Dirac comb.
They sample the signal and then computation and mathematical process.
The older one (AMM) were making true measurement with a rectifier and a
filtering cap.

This is particularly obvious in Amperemeter operations.

[Look165]

Definition of RMS :
The DC value that causes the same thermal effect on a resistor as the
original signal.

[Look165]

Joule is the quantity of energy neceassar for heatin 1g of water up to
+1° at 4°.
Watt is the power related to J but per second.

Phil Allison a écrit le 08/07/2019 à 23:59 :

[Phil Allison]

Look165 wrote:


** Who is this fucking mental retard ?

> NO ; with today's DMM the value is only true with sine wave.

** Not true of all DMM models.

> Some use triangular signal, other Dirac comb.
> They sample the signal and then computation and mathematical process.

** Total, absolute, fucking bullshit.

> The older one (AMM) were making true measurement with a rectifier and a
> filtering cap.
>

** Not true either - average rectified value, not peak is used.

> This is particularly obvious in Amperemeter operations.

** The only thing obvious is this fuckwit top poster is an escapee from a nut house.



..... Phil

[Phil Hobbs]

On 7/9/19 5:02 AM, Look165 wrote:

> Phil Hobbs a écrit le 09/07/2019 à 00:16 :
>> On 7/8/19 2:04 PM, Look165 wrote:
>>> I got a problem measuring efficienty on an SMPS unit.
>>>
>>> The meter I used was indicating about 50% which was absurd.
>>> I brought my personal old analog meter, it said about 85% !
>>> That's why I don't like todays's meters.
>>
>> You can get a true-RMS meter for way under $50.

> NO ; with today's DMM the value is only true with sine wave.
> Some use triangular signal, other Dirac comb.
> They sample the signal and then computation and mathematical process.
> The older one (AMM) were making true measurement with a rectifier and a
> filtering cap.
>
> This is particularly obvious in Amperemeter operations.
>

You're cracked. (Plus you top-post.)

Rectifier + filter is _not_ a true-RMS meter.

<https://www.walmart.com/search/?cat_id=0&query=true+rms+multimeter>

[tabb...@gmail.com]

When I looked into this decades ago, digital meters typical read the peak & reported 71% of that. So as you depart from sine, all bets are off. But as mentioned, limited frequency response also means as you depart from 50/60Hz it's all going to go out of cal.

If you're measuring a consistent waveform, eg CRT filament supply in TVs, the waveform & f are consistent so you could apply a fixed correction factor. If your waveform or f varies, fuggedit.


NT

[Look165]

Not considering losses, The mean rectified signal is 2^^(1.5)/pi the RMS
input value
2^^(1.5)/pi is about 0.9.

Phil Allison a écrit le 08/07/2019 à 23:59 :

[Phil Allison]

** Nutcase Thornton spewed:

> tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> > I wonder if the meter reading has a consistent relationship to the RMS
> > value. E.g., if the meter always used the peak value, the actual value
> > would simply be 0.7 the read value. If it was consistent, I could
> > calculate the correction factor by measuring the peak on a scope. But I
> > wouldn't want to have to generate correction curves.
>
> When I looked into this decades ago, digital meters typical read the peak & reported 71% of that.

** Nope - non RMS multimeters do just what analogue multimeters do and scale the average value of the rectified AC wave.

I just tried two '80s 3.5 digit DDMs and found they read 125mV on a wave that was 300mV peak. The wave was 50Hz with a few harmonics, the current draw of a small amplifier.



..... Phil

[Phil Allison]

** Some top posting Idiot called Look165 wrote:

-----------------------------------------------

> Not considering losses, The mean rectified signal is 2^^(1.5)/pi the RMS
> input value 2^^(1.5)/pi is about 0.9.

** Yes - but so fucking what ?

The OP is about rms values.



.... Phil

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 11 July 2019 04:54:24 UTC+1, Phil Allison wrote:
> ** Nutcase Thornton spewed:

Ah yes, the sample of 2 proves how the rest of the universe is.

[Look165]

DMM work perfectly with sine wave, but not with other signals.

[Phil Allison]

Raving Lunatic Thornton puke more bullshit

> > >
> > > When I looked into this decades ago, digital meters typical read the peak & reported 71% of that.
> >
>>
> > ** Nope - non RMS multimeters do just what analogue multimeters do and scale the average value of the rectified AC wave.
> >
> > I just tried two '80s 3.5 digit DDMs and found they read 125mV on a wave that was 300mV peak. The wave was 50Hz with a few harmonics, the current draw of a small amplifier.
>
>

> Ah yes, the sample of 2 proves how the rest of the universe is.
>
>

** With absolutely no evidence to the contrary, it is well good enough to cast very great doubt on an unsupported and improbable assertion for a known lying idiot.



...... Phil

[Phil Allison]

Conegenital nut case called Look165 wrote:
>
>
> DMM work perfectly with sine wave, but not with other signals.
>
>

** Standard DMMs, just like analogue types, read the average rectified value of a continuous wave scaled up by 1.11.

Perfectly accurately, with their working frequency ranges.



..... Phil