Dear All:
Recently I created a channel on You tube, and I have began to produce
technical videos.
On the video below, I use an HP 3457A to measure a 0.001 Ohm current shunt,
Not exactly what the instrument was design for, but it did a fairly decent
job.
HP 3457A Measuring a 0 001 Ohm Shunt Part 1 - YouTube
Sincerely,
Juliorz
Recently I created a channel on You tube, and I have began to produce
technical videos.
On the video below, I use an HP 3457A to measure a 0.001 Ohm current shunt,
Not exactly what the instrument was design for, but it did a fairly decent
job.
HP 3457A Measuring a 0 001 Ohm Shunt Part 1 - YouTube
Sincerely,
Juliorz
Interesting experiment. If the uncertainty of your bias is greater than the bias itself, how do you justify subtracting only the bias from the result, when really a 6 sigma on that measurement would be +/- 0.2 mOhm - and then why so many significant figures? It would be interesting to see a histogram of your shunt test to see if it is a truly normal distribution, etc.
Dear Sir:
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to watch my video, and I
also appreciate your feedback.
You are correct, I put this experiment together in a hurry just to show
that an old HP/Agilent 3457A could get the job done. (But NOT in a
production environment, it's probably TOO time consuming for that, although
with the HPIB/GPIB interface, we can speed up the process considerably)
I used a 2.25mm cooper plate to produce the closed thing to a real short
that I have ever been able to produce.
Yes, I was using significant figures that could not be justified.
And yes, it would be interesting so see if the data points fall in perfect
"bell type" distribution. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the raw data
from the experiment (the 200 samples used to compute the mean and
standard deviation) This was a "stand alone" experiment, no external
computer used to log the data. If more people request that I perform the
experiment again to dump the raw data to an external computer (maybe
generate an Excel spreadsheet) and get the actual distribution, I will consider
it.
In the mean time, stay tune for the release of part 2 in which I repeat the
experiment but in a completely different way (I don't want to give away the
ending)
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to watch my video, and I
also appreciate your feedback.
You are correct, I put this experiment together in a hurry just to show
that an old HP/Agilent 3457A could get the job done. (But NOT in a
production environment, it's probably TOO time consuming for that, although
with the HPIB/GPIB interface, we can speed up the process considerably)
I used a 2.25mm cooper plate to produce the closed thing to a real short
that I have ever been able to produce.
Yes, I was using significant figures that could not be justified.
And yes, it would be interesting so see if the data points fall in perfect
"bell type" distribution. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the raw data
from the experiment (the 200 samples used to compute the mean and
standard deviation) This was a "stand alone" experiment, no external
computer used to log the data. If more people request that I perform the
experiment again to dump the raw data to an external computer (maybe
generate an Excel spreadsheet) and get the actual distribution, I will consider
it.
In the mean time, stay tune for the release of part 2 in which I repeat the
experiment but in a completely different way (I don't want to give away the
ending)
Dear Sir:
First, thanks for watching my video and providing feedback.
You are correct, I put this experiment in a hurry just to show that an old HP/Agilent 3457A could get the job done.
Yes, the number of significant figures shown, is not appropriate I will take that into
consideration. Regarding the distribution of the data, this was a "stand alone" experiment
with no external computer to collect the raw data.
If more users requested, I will repeat the experiment but this time I will dump all the
raw to an external file which can be used to create an Excel spreadsheet.
In the mean time please stay tuned for part 2 in which I will repeat the experiment but
using a completely different procedure(I don't want to give the ending away)
Again thank you,
Juliorz
First, thanks for watching my video and providing feedback.
You are correct, I put this experiment in a hurry just to show that an old HP/Agilent 3457A could get the job done.
Yes, the number of significant figures shown, is not appropriate I will take that into
consideration. Regarding the distribution of the data, this was a "stand alone" experiment
with no external computer to collect the raw data.
If more users requested, I will repeat the experiment but this time I will dump all the
raw to an external file which can be used to create an Excel spreadsheet.
In the mean time please stay tuned for part 2 in which I will repeat the experiment but
using a completely different procedure(I don't want to give the ending away)
Again thank you,
Juliorz
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.