Really enjoyed this series of presentations on the Process Calibrators. RTD temperature verification (cal) using an electronic simulator would only be a functional test for me. As proven with your Time decade, any errors can be optimised (good bench DMM) to negate the offset. Precision electronic kit (Beamex MC6 approx £10k) (Fluke 726 approx £4k) isn't really feasible for the average process engineer, and uncertainties (2, 3 or 4 wire) may still need to be applied. MR9270S+ looks pretty good though. Is the resolution 0.1°C when simulating PT100? With my LB02a having 1°C resolution on RTD's this may have been a better option, even though reviews were scarce. In my experience, adjusting process loops (to bring within specifications) was problematic, as HMI's, chart recorders and PLC's were locked out at the time of testing! Are you planning on testing Thermocouple accuracy? Can of worms 😂
Glad you have enjoyed the videos. Yes the calibrators offered by Beamex / Druck / Fluke and the like are the ideal solution, but as you say very expensive and more of a company investment rather than an individual engineer. Yes the MR9270S+ does have 0.1°C resolution for the PT100 simulation, I haven't really tested it to that level of accuracy though. It is an option to look at thermocouple accuracy although I would need to assemble a few things to do that. I do plan to test out the 24V supply and PWM functions first. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Are the temperature sensors certified externally, or tested onsite with a dry block and reference sensor? When I tested my LB02A for thermocouple accuracy (K-type covers 95% of my needs) it was approx 0.25°C of expected on my 6.5 digit DMM. Once connected to a digital K-type thermometer (cold junction configured correctly and compensating cable used) I found errors of up to 1.0°C easily achieved. Will be interesting to see PWM functionality and configuration.
@@scottshaw1310 Sensors are all onsite tested with a dry block. Thermocouples are a very small signal, especially outside of a lab environment, so easy to get inaccuracies creeping in.
@@three-phase562 Dry block cal/adjust/cal of temp sensors is a real chore I find! Much happier working on pressure transmitters, position valves, data recorders and the like!
Yes, that is what it would be used for. If you were on a plant, depending on where you tested from you may also have extra cabling and terminations to contend with. Thanks for watching and the question.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
Really enjoyed this series of presentations on the Process Calibrators.
RTD temperature verification (cal) using an electronic simulator would only be a functional test for me.
As proven with your Time decade, any errors can be optimised (good bench DMM) to negate the offset.
Precision electronic kit (Beamex MC6 approx £10k) (Fluke 726 approx £4k) isn't really feasible for the average process engineer, and uncertainties (2, 3 or 4 wire) may still need to be applied.
MR9270S+ looks pretty good though. Is the resolution 0.1°C when simulating PT100? With my LB02a having 1°C resolution on RTD's this may have been a better option, even though reviews were scarce.
In my experience, adjusting process loops (to bring within specifications) was problematic, as HMI's, chart recorders and PLC's were locked out at the time of testing!
Are you planning on testing Thermocouple accuracy?
Can of worms 😂
Glad you have enjoyed the videos. Yes the calibrators offered by Beamex / Druck / Fluke and the like are the ideal solution, but as you say very expensive and more of a company investment rather than an individual engineer.
Yes the MR9270S+ does have 0.1°C resolution for the PT100 simulation, I haven't really tested it to that level of accuracy though.
It is an option to look at thermocouple accuracy although I would need to assemble a few things to do that. I do plan to test out the 24V supply and PWM functions first.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
Are the temperature sensors certified externally, or tested onsite with a dry block and reference sensor?
When I tested my LB02A for thermocouple accuracy (K-type covers 95% of my needs) it was approx 0.25°C of expected on my 6.5 digit DMM.
Once connected to a digital K-type thermometer (cold junction configured correctly and compensating cable used) I found errors of up to 1.0°C easily achieved.
Will be interesting to see PWM functionality and configuration.
@@scottshaw1310 Sensors are all onsite tested with a dry block. Thermocouples are a very small signal, especially outside of a lab environment, so easy to get inaccuracies creeping in.
@@three-phase562 Dry block cal/adjust/cal of temp sensors is a real chore I find! Much happier working on pressure transmitters, position valves, data recorders and the like!
A question about the offset at 2 min 36 sec. Is this offset intended to compensate for the resistance of the cable to the PT100 element?
Yes, that is what it would be used for. If you were on a plant, depending on where you tested from you may also have extra cabling and terminations to contend with.
Thanks for watching and the question.