JoshP wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Locoloki wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yeah the problem was the multimeter can't take instantaneous readings, my dad had said you need current flow, not that I need to know that amperage. Poor memory on my part.
The oscillator idea is good, thank you OH.
actually they can, put it on max hold, or get an older style with a needle where you can physically see it <-- thats how they taught us to do capacitors anyways
You can get a maximum value, but the problem is the voltmeter is going to be taking so many samples per second, and I don't think (or have any reason to believe) that it takes a lot of samples per second. If you don't happen to catch the max then it's worthless, and even if you do catch something you don't really know if it is really the max or not.
JoshP I am concerned for the accuracy of that measurement. In theory I recognize that would work, but there are just too many variables.
How often does it spark when it sparks? And is the voltage constant? If the supplied voltage is constant then there should only be two variables - the separation and the humidity of air.
How accurate do you need it?
The voltage is not necessarily constant, that's the problem.
Ideally it is, but every spark might be a little different. Different enough I think that trying to make one measurement "does not spark" and another "sparks" would not be so accurate. Last year for science fair I used a method similar to that and let me tell you, it was frustrating as hell and didn't produce very accurate results.
Just as accurate as possible. It's not life or death, but the measurement will be useless if it's not accurate enough to notice a distinct trend.
Locoloki wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Locoloki wrote:
actually they can, put it on max hold, or get an older style with a needle where you can physically see it <-- thats how they taught us to do capacitors anyways
You can get a maximum value, but the problem is the voltmeter is going to be taking so many samples per second, and I don't think (or have any reason to believe) that it takes a lot of samples per second. If you don't happen to catch the max then it's worthless, and even if you do catch something you don't really know if it is really the max or not.
JoshP I am concerned for the accuracy of that measurement. In theory I recognize that would work, but there are just too many variables.
well, if it can do hertz thats 60 cycles a second... how fast do you need? and your right, no meter is 100% accurate, but ohms law is right everytime. Learn to use your tools before you judge what they can, and cannot do, you shouldnt be fuckin around with 60,000 volts if you dont know what your are doing.
Now if for some reason you have a stun gun and want to know how many volts its actually putting out.
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/in … 851AAptwS9Theres no feasible way to measure, your going to have to use math
Isn't one hertz one cycle per second...?
It doesn't have to be sampling at x rate, it's just that the faster it samples the less lucky you have to be. I can't see there being much of a reason to make a multimeter that samples a lot, so I don't know why it would.
You can't just "measure the resistance of air", because it's a function of the size of the gap as well. If you take that into account you're just saying what JoshP is.