* * *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
11-23-2017 -- 18:19:51

Login with username, password and session length

Top 10 Posters

flew-da-coup (1294)
Hawaii596 (983)
USMCPMEL (828)
Hoopty (545)
docbyers (544)
MIRCS (534)
PMEL_DEVIL-DOG (509)
griff61 (506)
Thraxas (498)
CalLabSolutions (468)
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 18472
  • Total Topics: 3329
  • Online Today: 46
  • Online Ever: 242
  • (04-19-2014 -- 19:20:34)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 43
Total: 43

Author Topic: Which RTD Do You Like?  (Read 245 times)

Offline briansalomon

  • 5-level
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Action Taken: +4/-1
    • Email
Which RTD Do You Like?
« on: 11-14-2017 -- 17:41:07 »
I'm looking for an RTD suitable for use with a Fluke 754 multi function calibrator.

I'm not a temperature guy and would like to know what brand/model you like.

I need a span of -100 to +200 deg C and want a tolerance of +/- 0.25 deg C or better (for the sensor) across that span.

It will be used primarily in environmental chambers and the sensor will be inserted completely into the environment it is measuring.

I'm not committed to the 754 but I think with the right sensor it will do everything I want.

Offline bAdbOb

  • 3-level
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • Action Taken: +2/-0
    • Email
Re: Which RTD Do You Like?
« Reply #1 on: 11-15-2017 -- 16:32:45 »
We have used three 5628's for over 18 years and have never had one fail calibration. We use them from -40 to 600C.

http://us.flukecal.com/products/temperature-calibration/probes-sensors/platinum-resistance-thermometers-prts/5626-5628-seco?quicktabs_product_details=0
A.  F.   PMEL 72-81
Malmstrom 73-75, Ramstein 75-77, Edwards 77-81

Offline NC-Cals

  • 3-level
  • **
  • Posts: 41
  • Action Taken: +0/-0
    • Email
Re: Which RTD Do You Like?
« Reply #2 on: 11-17-2017 -- 17:04:20 »
I don't think the 754 with an RTD is your best option since the calibration coefficients can't be programmed into a 754. They can on a Beamex MC6, but there's a lot of expense for that. From your description, it sounds like the chambers may not have a probe port and the entire probe has to be inserted in the chamber. Most RTD probes can't take +200C at the handle. Accumac has a oven probe that can be fully inserted, but it is not rated for low temperatures. If you are using the 754, then you'll have to get a Class A or better RTD to meet your accuracy requirements without coefficients.
http://www.temperature.com.au/Support/RTDSensors/RTDaccuracyClassAClassB13DIN110DIN.aspx


Offline OlDave

  • 5-level
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
  • Action Taken: +21/-0
Re: Which RTD Do You Like?
« Reply #3 on: 11-18-2017 -- 14:23:14 »
We have very good success with the Fluke 5606 Full Immersion PRT probes. We use them routinely in -80C applications and have had no problems. They are only rated to 160C so they may not be perfectly suited to your application however. We read them with the Fluke 1523 handheld readout so we can utilize the probe coefficients instead of relying on the probes conformance to the standard PRT table. Just relying on the conformance to the standard table won't provide you with your requested 0.25C accuracy across your -100 to 200C range. I personally don't know of any sensors that conform to that accuracy across your range without using their calibration coefficients.

The sweet thing about them is that we have a number that we specially ordered with 65 foot leads for really big chambers. They are small enough diameter leads that we can run them outside the door and read them after the chamber restabilizes.

 


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.