Re: Compare meters accuracy - Tes-92 versus Cornet ED-65

[Guest guest]

It is logical that these values of these broadband meters do vary.

I have compared a number of HF meters.

At the same spot I measuerd from 6 µW/m² up to 3.000 µW/m² (somebody else).

Read *het bitje* November 2010.

Look at the end of http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina112a.html

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton

Compare meters accuracy - Tes-92 versus Cornet ED-65

I need advice from all you experts out there. I have both the Tes-92 3 axis

meter and the Cornet ED-65. I am getting wildly different readings from them.

I like to know if any of you have compared the accuracy of any of these meters

against any confirmed calibrated meters, or against one of those expensive

German GigaHertz meters, or against a professional grade spectrum analyzer. One

government agency claims that the Tes-92 exaggerates readings by up to 300%

(http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09277.html).

In particular, the manual of Tes-92 itself provides a list of " typical "

calibration factors for different frequencies. In effect, this meter's

frequency response varies greatly depending on the frequency (in some cases by a

factor of 10 times (1000%)). So if I am exposed to multiple frequencies in my

environment, which I am sure I am, this meter is practically useless for

measuring my actual exposure.

Does the Cornet have any more " flat " frequency response? It's reading is 10

times lower than the Tes-92 in most environments.

I would never know unless someone has tested any of these meters against a

truly calibrated meter or spectrum analyzer.

I am eager would hear of anyone and their experience.

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Thanks . By the way, I found the page for " het bitje " but did not see

the link for Nov 2010. Can you kindly provide the link as well?

thanks a lot,

Ann

>

> It is logical that these values of these broadband meters do vary.

>

> I have compared a number of HF meters.

> At the same spot I measuerd from 6 µW/m² up to 3.000 µW/m² (somebody else).

>

> Read *het bitje* November 2010.

>

> Look at the end of http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina112a.html

>

>

>

> Greetings,

> Claessens

> member Verband Baubiologie

> www.milieuziektes.nl

> www.milieuziektes.be

> www.hetbitje.nl

> checked by Norton

>

>

> Compare meters accuracy - Tes-92 versus Cornet ED-65

>

>

> I need advice from all you experts out there. I have both the Tes-92 3 axis

meter and the Cornet ED-65. I am getting wildly different readings from them.

I like to know if any of you have compared the accuracy of any of these meters

against any confirmed calibrated meters, or against one of those expensive

German GigaHertz meters, or against a professional grade spectrum analyzer. One

government agency claims that the Tes-92 exaggerates readings by up to 300%

(http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09277.html).

>

> In particular, the manual of Tes-92 itself provides a list of " typical "

calibration factors for different frequencies. In effect, this meter's

frequency response varies greatly depending on the frequency (in some cases by a

factor of 10 times (1000%)). So if I am exposed to multiple frequencies in my

environment, which I am sure I am, this meter is practically useless for

measuring my actual exposure.

>

> Does the Cornet have any more " flat " frequency response? It's reading is 10

times lower than the Tes-92 in most environments.

>

> I would never know unless someone has tested any of these meters against a

truly calibrated meter or spectrum analyzer.

>

> I am eager would hear of anyone and their experience.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Ann,

http://www.hetbitje.nl/bitjeE201011p.pdf

There is also a german version.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton

Compare meters accuracy - Tes-92 versus Cornet ED-65

>

>

> I need advice from all you experts out there. I have both the Tes-92 3

axis meter and the Cornet ED-65. I am getting wildly different readings from

them. I like to know if any of you have compared the accuracy of any of these

meters against any confirmed calibrated meters, or against one of those

expensive German GigaHertz meters, or against a professional grade spectrum

analyzer. One government agency claims that the Tes-92 exaggerates readings by

up to 300% (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09277.html).

>

> In particular, the manual of Tes-92 itself provides a list of " typical "

calibration factors for different frequencies. In effect, this meter's

frequency response varies greatly depending on the frequency (in some cases by a

factor of 10 times (1000%)). So if I am exposed to multiple frequencies in my

environment, which I am sure I am, this meter is practically useless for

measuring my actual exposure.

>

> Does the Cornet have any more " flat " frequency response? It's reading is

10 times lower than the Tes-92 in most environments.

>

> I would never know unless someone has tested any of these meters against a

truly calibrated meter or spectrum analyzer.

>

> I am eager would hear of anyone and their experience.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>