* * *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
10-23-2017 -- 13:33:15

Login with username, password and session length

Top 10 Posters

flew-da-coup (1293)
Hawaii596 (983)
USMCPMEL (824)
Hoopty (545)
docbyers (544)
MIRCS (532)
PMEL_DEVIL-DOG (509)
griff61 (500)
Thraxas (498)
CalLabSolutions (468)
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 18408
  • Total Topics: 3307
  • Online Today: 54
  • Online Ever: 242
  • (04-19-2014 -- 19:20:34)
Users Online
Users: 1
Guests: 46
Total: 47

Author Topic: 5790A Uncertainty Budget  (Read 1586 times)

Offline sanuriel

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Action Taken: +0/-0
    • Email
5790A Uncertainty Budget
« on: 08-09-2017 -- 17:33:55 »
Hi all, I know this may be taboo but I'm trying to sort this out here since contacting Fluke yielded nothing. So the company recently acquired a 792A to calibrate 5790A/B, and I've been tasked with the uncertainty calculation. Working on the 1000V range with 1000V in I've come up with the following contributors:

732A Uncertainty (contains cal uncertainty and trended uncertainty)
752A Uncertainty
5730A Linearity (because we are adjusting from a non-nominal value to a nominal value) x 2 (positive and negative)
5730A Stability
8508A Linearity (100 mV RNG because we are verifying roughly 10V to 10V)
Resolution of UUT (I think only once, but I'm not sure)
Repeatability of UUT
792A Calibration Accy
8508A Linearity x 2 (because +DC after connected to 792A, -DC after connection, and the AC Measurement) - Figure I don't care what the value is just the difference between the measurements.

What am I missing as my uncertainty looks much better than Fluke's?

Offline chinman

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Action Taken: +0/-0
Re: 5790A Uncertainty Budget
« Reply #1 on: 08-09-2017 -- 21:04:35 »
There is a 1000 V range resistor that goes with the 792A.

Offline briansalomon

  • 5-level
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Action Taken: +4/-1
    • Email
Re: 5790A Uncertainty Budget
« Reply #2 on: 08-09-2017 -- 23:52:50 »
If you use the search tool on this website you will find a great deal of information on this subject in previous discussions.

I know Fluke does use a coverage factor of K=3 for some of their tolerances.

Offline N79

  • 3-level
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Action Taken: +2/-0
Re: 5790A Uncertainty Budget
« Reply #3 on: 08-09-2017 -- 23:57:06 »
I would guess your 792A measurement uncertainty would swamp most other sources you've listed, and besides the Type A I think you have a pretty good list. As a check, make sure all the contributors you combine are of the same units and use the same distribution parameter (usually 1 sigma). The unit check will not necessarily tell if your analysis is right, but it will definitely let you know if it is wrong.
« Last Edit: 08-10-2017 -- 00:00:46 by N79 »

Offline sanuriel

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Action Taken: +0/-0
    • Email
Re: 5790A Uncertainty Budget
« Reply #4 on: 08-10-2017 -- 11:36:26 »
There is a 1000 V range resistor that goes with the 792A.

That is given, otherwise I would have destroyed the 792A

Offline sanuriel

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Action Taken: +0/-0
    • Email
Re: 5790A Uncertainty Budget
« Reply #5 on: 08-10-2017 -- 12:20:02 »
If you use the search tool on this website you will find a great deal of information on this subject in previous discussions.

I know Fluke does use a coverage factor of K=3 for some of their tolerances.

I looked for 5790A uncertainty and 792A uncertainty and really the search does next to nothing.

Offline HoggyBank

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Action Taken: +0/-0
Re: 5790A Uncertainty Budget
« Reply #6 on: 08-16-2017 -- 00:14:38 »
At 1000V at 1k Hz, the 5790B has an absolute accuracy of 38 ppm (1 year), the 792A (according to the manual) has a +/- 5C uncertainty of 27ppm.  Without any other contributions, you are already at 1.4 to 1. 

For your 792A, you should be using the AC/DC Measurement Uncertainty.  This is found on the certificate from Fluke or whoever calibrated your 792A.  Fluke gives 2 pages, 1 with corrections; the other with the uncertainties.  May be better or worse than what is in the manual.  Depends on what you pay for. :-D



Offline measure

  • 3-level
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Action Taken: +1/-6
Re: 5790A Uncertainty Budget
« Reply #7 on: 10-09-2017 -- 19:48:12 »
I know Fluke does use a coverage factor of K=3 for some of their tolerances.

Fluke does not use k=3 for some of their tolerances; Fluke Calibration products are typically specified at 99%, where k=2.576.

Offline sanuriel

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Action Taken: +0/-0
    • Email
Re: 5790A Uncertainty Budget
« Reply #8 on: 10-10-2017 -- 17:19:31 »
I know Fluke does use a coverage factor of K=3 for some of their tolerances.

Fluke does not use k=3 for some of their tolerances; Fluke Calibration products are typically specified at 99%, where k=2.576.

You're incorrect here as Fluke themselves told me that the 792A was at a K=3.

Offline briansalomon

  • 5-level
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Action Taken: +4/-1
    • Email
Re: 5790A Uncertainty Budget
« Reply #9 on: 10-10-2017 -- 19:41:51 »
I went back and reviewed a response by "USMC Kalibrater" from a previous discussion on this subject. If you use the search function and look for "coverage factor" it leads to his response:

In reply #54 He points out that a 95% coverage factor (K=2) is actually 1.96  (rounded to 2 places)

So K=2 and K=3 are a type of shorthand. The actual factors would be used for the calculations but are represented like this on certificates for simplicity.


Offline Hawaii596

  • 7-level
  • ****
  • Posts: 983
  • Action Taken: +16/-3
Re: 5790A Uncertainty Budget
« Reply #10 on: 10-10-2017 -- 21:27:48 »
Yes, it is sometimes a little confusing, as some Fluke products have k=2, and some have k=3 specifications. It changes how you apply them in uncertainty budgets.  I had to go through and do some budget corrections due to this issue.
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
from lecture to the Institute of Civil Engineers, 3 May 1883

 


DISCLAIMER:  This site is not an official US Air Force site, it is intended for private use only.  It is not endorsed, in any way, by the US Air Force, the DoD, or any other governmental agency.  Additionally, all information found within this site is just that, it is NOT meant to be used in place of authorized publications.


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.

All forum content is the property of the respective poster, all the rest 2004-2017 by PMEL Forum.