On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:53:25 -0600) it happened John S wrote in :
I am not even sure of the accuracy of my multimeter, that was actually also only about 5 $. But I adjusted that pot in it with what was it the MCP1525 Microchip reference, Actually I have several of those multimeters and they all show different values.
This amp meter shows about the same as the multimeter but have not had those in series.
I do want to put out a word here for reality check: In Your Circuit Needs 0.1 % Resistors Then You Likely F*cked Up.
Sure there are scientific cases where somebody get a kick out of more behind the dot... But for the average and here we talk about induction cooking etc, if you move the load a millimeter then the current changes, even when water evaporates, temperature, in radio and TV, in 99.999 % of all applications 5% should be good enough and 1% overkill. A good designer can do it with 20%.
It is the same with glowball worming, we had and will have ice ages, and palm trees were found at the poles, earth axis will flip, magnetic field will change, and yet you accept being taxed for the weather for a mere uncertain 2 degrees that has actually not even risen the last hundred years or 2 hundred,. In short: NO I DID NOT VERIFY IT AGAINST THE STANDARD AMPERE. YES IT SEEMS ACCURATE ENOUGH FOR ME TO SEE THE LOAD ON THE BATTERY. Do you know the tolerances in battery capacity charge state at any time? Even the f*cking mains voltage? What has 'merrica come to? No wonder the F35 does not fly.
Loved the description: "The power supply end of the ammeter and measuring the ground USES a total design, that is to say, the power supply ground wire and test the ground wire is mutually, so only string ammeter test end after the electric appliances"
palm > trees were found at the poles, earth axis will flip, magnetic field will
in 2 > degrees that has actually not even risen the last hundred years or 2 hundred,.
The orientation of the the earth's magnetic field has no influence on globa l warming - and Jan's assertion that it might is a reflection of the depth of his thinking about the subject.
The earth's average temperature has risen by about one degree Celcius over the past 100 years and the train of logic that suggests that if we keep on raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere we'll get another degree Celcius of warming in rather less than one hundred years does incorporate the fact th at there were palm trees at the poles a long time ago when atmospheric CO2 levels were even higher. During the ice ages the atmospheric CO2 levels wen t down to 180ppm, and during interglacials (like this one) it goes up to 27
0ppm until some ape starts digging up fossil carbon and burning it for fuel (which does seem to be a unique feature of this interglacial and may put o ff the next ice age for some time yet).
Jan's difficulties with appreciating these facts come from his unwillingnes s to pay enough attention to the arguments - I wouldn't call him stupid, an y more than I'd call John Larkin or James Arthur stupid, but all three of t hem don't want to go to the trouble of understanding what's actually being said, and are happy to believe the self-serving nonsense on the subject bei ng pushed out by people who make a lot of money out of digging up fossil ca rbon and selling it as fuel, and want to be able to keep on doing that for as long as they can get away with it.