Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList
Thread
'[EE]: Measuring the peak value of an AC squarewave'
2002\09\16@114603
by
smerchock, Steve
Friends,
I am having a problem that I really need help with.
I am trying to measure an AC squarewave at 800Hz with a
dutycycle of 50%. I am using a Keithley 2000 multimeter
set to read ACV. I need to measure the volts peak, the meter
gives me the volts RMS. I figure I could do the formula but
nothing matches.
I am measuring 5.6Vpp and 2.8Vrms. This doesn't make any sense to
me. When I measure the sinewave of an equivelant circuit everything
works out mathematically. Could someone point me to a possible solution.
I have a feeling I am missing / forgetting something trivial.
Thanks in advance!!
Best regards,
Steve

http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
2002\09\16@115322
by
Jim
2002\09\16@115326
by
Jochen Feldhaar

Hi Steve,
everything is OK!
You have 50% duty cycle, and pp Voltage is double the RMS value (what
would be dissipated as equivalent DC in a resistor).
I wonder why your results are so good in precision that I always get
suspicious that Mr. Murphy is lurking just around the corner.....hehehe
Greets Jochen
"Kosmerchock, Steve" schrieb:
{Quote hidden}>
> Friends,
>
> I am having a problem that I really need help with.
> I am trying to measure an AC squarewave at 800Hz with a
> dutycycle of 50%. I am using a Keithley 2000 multimeter
> set to read ACV. I need to measure the volts peak, the meter
> gives me the volts RMS. I figure I could do the formula but
> nothing matches.
>
> I am measuring 5.6Vpp and 2.8Vrms. This doesn't make any sense to
> me. When I measure the sinewave of an equivelant circuit everything
> works out mathematically. Could someone point me to a possible solution.
> I have a feeling I am missing / forgetting something trivial.
>
> Thanks in advance!!
>
> Best regards,
> Steve
>
> 
>
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> ways. See
http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
2002\09\16@120333
by
Jochen Feldhaar

Jochen Feldhaar schrieb:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> everything is OK!
> You have 50% duty cycle, and pp Voltage is double the RMS value (what
> would be dissipated as equivalent DC in a resistor).
>
> I wonder why your results are so good in precision that I always get
> suspicious that Mr. Murphy is lurking just around the corner.....hehehe
Oh God, my English.....
I wanted to say that results that tally so fine are a surefire indicator
of a Murphy situation...
Jochen
{Quote hidden}>
> Greets Jochen
>
> "Kosmerchock, Steve" schrieb:
> >
> > Friends,
> >
> > I am having a problem that I really need help with.
> > I am trying to measure an AC squarewave at 800Hz with a
> > dutycycle of 50%. I am using a Keithley 2000 multimeter
> > set to read ACV. I need to measure the volts peak, the meter
> > gives me the volts RMS. I figure I could do the formula but
> > nothing matches.
> >
> > I am measuring 5.6Vpp and 2.8Vrms. This doesn't make any sense to
> > me. When I measure the sinewave of an equivelant circuit everything
> > works out mathematically. Could someone point me to a possible solution.
> > I have a feeling I am missing / forgetting something trivial.
> >
> > Thanks in advance!!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Steve
> >
> > 
> >
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> > ways. See
http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
>
> 
>
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> ways. See
http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
2002\09\16@120704
by
Giles Honeycutt
Steve,
The formula for the RMS of a AC square wave is Divide by 2
Or you can just flip the negative, and you have DC and DC is RMS
Best regards,
Giles
{Original Message removed}
2002\09\16@140833
by
Herbert Graf
Have you checked the input bandwidth of your meter? It is likely that it is
attenuating (and possibly doing some ugly non linear things to) the incoming
signal in such a way that it causes your mysterious readings. I'd suggest
dumping the meter and using a scope, one of the new digital scopes would be
best since they often have measurement capabilites (otherwise you can figure
it out with a "normal" scope using a calculator). TTYL
> {Original Message removed}
2002\09\16@144014
by
Smith,Steven W

There is this really great little book called "An Introduction to
Circuits and Electronics by J.R. Cogdell" It explains it nicely (Hard
to get but an really nice intro to basic circuits, page 153).
The root mean square of a signal is really determined by its integral
Vrms = Square Root( 1/T Integral( V(t)^2 dt) over 1 period of the wave.
When a meter gives true RMS value, this is actually what it does, a
nontrue RMS meter gives an approximation for a sin function  a factor
of 2 * square root of 2.
So you take your square wave over one period, square it and find its
integral over the single period. Then you divide by the period.
Then you take the square root to get the final answer.
Since you're squaring the "square wave, 50% duty cycle", the areas below
0 Volts, become positive. That means that if you have a 5 Volt peak
square wave, you have a section that's +5 and 5 each of 1/2 the period.
So when you square it you get (25V * 1/2 T) + (25V *1/2 T) = 25V T/T =
25, which has a square root of 5 V  The peak to peak in this case is
10V  or divide by 2 as stated before. If you change your function,
then you change the factor. A triangle is different than a square, a
sin is different than the others, etc.
You need to check your meter  a Keithley 2000 is most likely a true RMS
meter. The manuals of Keithley products often have this type of
explanation also.
Steve Smith
Electrical Engineer

http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
2002\09\16@173644
by
Peter L. Peres
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Jochen Feldhaar wrote:
*>I wonder why your results are so good in precision that I always get
*>suspicious that Mr. Murphy is lurking just around the corner.....hehehe
Or he spent too much money on test equipment and Murphy took care of
other details instead ;)
Peter

http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
2002\09\16@175941
by
smerchock, Steve
Jim,
This is for an automated test setup. I can not afford
to buy a GPIB oscope. Thanks anyways for the response.
Steve
{Original Message removed}
2002\09\16@191618
by
Peter L. Peres

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Kosmerchock, Steve wrote:
*>Friends,
*>
*>I am having a problem that I really need help with.
*>I am trying to measure an AC squarewave at 800Hz with a
*>dutycycle of 50%. I am using a Keithley 2000 multimeter
*>set to read ACV. I need to measure the volts peak, the meter
*>gives me the volts RMS. I figure I could do the formula but
*>nothing matches.
*>
*>I am measuring 5.6Vpp and 2.8Vrms. This doesn't make any sense to
*>me. When I measure the sinewave of an equivelant circuit everything
*>works out mathematically. Could someone point me to a possible solution.
*>I have a feeling I am missing / forgetting something trivial.
I don't know if your dmm is a true rms one. It seems to be from the
following. rms means root (of) mean (of voltages measured over a second)
squared as you know.
You do not say if you measure 5.6Vpp with a scope. For a square wave with
5.6Vpp a true rms meter should indicate 2.8Vrms as yours does.
When in doubt picture the rms value as the area between the time axis and
the waveform, divided by time (this happens to be mathematically correct
too if you use the correct timescale and volts for the vertical scale).
For a sine wave the rms value is 0.707 of half of the pkpk value.
For a symmetrical triangle wave the rms value is 0.5 of the half of the
pkpk value (regardless of the shape of the triangle wave, as long as it
has no dc component).
Peter

http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
2002\09\16@215919
by
smerchock, Steve
Giles,
This is what I figured, but what would be the "peak" value?
In an AC sinewave the peak value is half of the peak to peak
value and the RMS is the peak x 0.707. Is their a math formula
for finding the peak value?
Thanks for your help!
Steve
{Original Message removed}
2002\09\16@215936
by
smerchock, Steve
Jochen,
This is for a military spec'd device. Precision is
a MUST. Mr. Murphy isn't allowed in the building! ;)
Thanks for your help.
Steve
{Original Message removed}
2002\09\16@230148
by
Jim
Steve, if this really is a "mil spec'd"
device I would say you really need to
get one of your EE's to buyoff on your
test methodology ... no offense to the
list, but this is like getting "medical
advice" from a panel over the internet ...
What if, during your "testing" of this particular
device or box, something shifts or changes such
that the RMS value reads within tolerances on
the Keithley  yet the actual value/waveform
has shifted considerably from the 800 Hz 50%
duty cycle square wave?
Depending on the box you're checking/testing, this
may not be an issue  perhaps this is a simple
functional check an LRU (Line Replaceable Unit)
of some other noncritical parameter and this
isn't an issue.
RF Jim

http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
More... (looser matching)
 Last day of these posts
 In 2002
, 2003 only
 Today
 New search...