Your post read "my numbers are actual watts, not 'peak'." Actual watts, implying the same ol' argument that there's no such thing as peak watts. Why do you have to bring this up when by now everyone should be aware of both your and my testing methodology because we've both been over it too many times now?For fs sake, this again? I was trying to have a constructive conversation here, and you completely ignore all that and go off on this again. I was clarifying since the numbers would be different to those looking. I even said "Just clarifying since this horse has been beaten to death"
You'll just have to forgive me then if I'm being a bit defensive but it was under a week ago in another thread and you were being anything but friendly to me. If you want to be decent, I'll play nice but you gotta cut out the snarky quips at my expense routine, I've had about enough of it.sigh.. I actually was, I was making light of the past crap and actually trying to start a meaningful discussion, but you ignored the rest of the post completely. I even said it was nice to see you sharing data. I'm actually trying to get along here.
So what's the difference in using the positive peak unclipped value like I do? Multiply it by .707 if you must but at least it would be a clean unclipped signal.Note the peaks are at almost identical levels on top and bottom.
So you're admitting that there is error in your method, this was my point for like a year now. You aren't really giving the "actual power" of 1.5 cycles so why are you telling people that when you know you're not?Furthermore, since there's some flat topping, the RMS values are actually higher than using the p-p numbers. In the end, it comes out to within .1-.2db. The temperature of the amp and unit to unit variances will introduce more error than this method.
You stop first and I will. Hey, like I said: I don't care what methodology you adopt for 2010 bursts, there's no standard but you started this by telling me I was wrong so you're going to get it back unless you drop it.I wasn't even harping on your method, so just stop. I was clarifying that it wasn't 'peak' watts so the numbers won't line up.
Comon man, you really think I didn't test my tools? This ain't my first day. Oh, just the same snarky talk down to me BS. Must be more of that trying to get along stuff I keep hearing about.fluke 87-v doesn't report watts. Not sure what a peak voltage rating from a basic volt meter has to do with this discussion. It's not a tool to measure complex signals.
Also, their docs say it displays min and max readings.
Maybe you contact them and ask for a user manual
The Fluke agrees with the Rigol within 2-5% with the positive most peak even in dynamic source material. Meaning: you can find the peak wattage using both tools which is fairly significant seeing as it's a multimeter. Why do you think they went to the trouble to design the functionality into the tool?