Thank you sir you are obviously the smartest one here as you tackled the problem right away.
I have redone measurements with Agilent current clamp and have done manual calculations.
Actual dissipation at the primary is 779.5W which is an excellent figure.
Thanks again for your input hm4nine!!!
The fluke obviously can't compute a proper AC calculation on this irregular waveform!
Case closed! Now I can proceed to tune bias for proper temp raise and I think everything is pretty much done!!
I have redone measurements with Agilent current clamp and have done manual calculations.
Actual dissipation at the primary is 779.5W which is an excellent figure.
Thanks again for your input hm4nine!!!
The fluke obviously can't compute a proper AC calculation on this irregular waveform!
Case closed! Now I can proceed to tune bias for proper temp raise and I think everything is pretty much done!!
Yes the problem is not the fluke is the waveform that probably is very irregular.
The Agilent current probe works with a scope...and it is more than $1500 cheaper than the fluke...and if I had the digital Agilent scope to calculate the RMS it would probably give me the same result as the fluke...I wonder if it had to do with some of the settings on the fluke...thinking it gave me a wrong frequency...maybe it is calculating the wrong period....
I could download the row file from the fluke import it on excel and calculate the rms on the spreadsheet ....that would probably give me a more precise calculation...but it would likely be useless!! Not gonna lie though...I am pretty disappointed in this instance at the fluke...
The Agilent current probe works with a scope...and it is more than $1500 cheaper than the fluke...and if I had the digital Agilent scope to calculate the RMS it would probably give me the same result as the fluke...I wonder if it had to do with some of the settings on the fluke...thinking it gave me a wrong frequency...maybe it is calculating the wrong period....
I could download the row file from the fluke import it on excel and calculate the rms on the spreadsheet ....that would probably give me a more precise calculation...but it would likely be useless!! Not gonna lie though...I am pretty disappointed in this instance at the fluke...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.