Amperage pull of a computer?

Nah! "rational" is part of "rationalization". ...not possible!

>

Once again, we're just trying to educate your little mind. I know it hurts to try to learn after being wrong about everything your whole life. Please do try to open your puny mind though. Others *are* trying to help. ...no clue why anymore, but...

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:46:36 GMT, "daestrom" Gave us:

No shit. If you cannot grasp the concept that a direct voltage reading across the same type shunt place directly in circuit is more accurate, AND safer than putting 26 Ga. meter leads in a 16 Ga fed circuit, then you need to go back to school right along with the RossTard.

I KNOW how a friggin DMM works in current mode. That is what I have been telling you... all this time.

With the resistor only, the circuit is ONLY the additional 0.1 Ohms in series with the source.

For your method (the meter, current mode), it is the 0.1 ohm shunt, which is where the "reading" is being taken, AND an additional two resistors in series with the circuit source in the form of the two meter leads. THAT resistance is what introduces the error in the system. It also changes the circuit, so the error carries further (chaining errors).

With my method, a properly calibrated 4.5 digit meter will give you sub microamp accuracy using voltage scales, the most accurate the meter has. Even though that is what the meter itself does when in current mode, there IS error with that method that cannot be accounted for by the meter

I did my error calc with those two lead resistances *inside* the shunt value. That was an error. It is outside, and that means that you cannot make your error calc accurate as it varies.

No shit.

No shit. Wont see it being used in any of my applications with standard leads.

I *DO* have a set of 14/32 strand silver plated copper, teflon, mil wire with banana and bare tip at 6 inches that I use two of with high confidence.

I *DO NOT* use standard meter leads to test currents in power applications.

I *DID* use them today for micoramp measurements at 11kV. As you stated... perfectly good for low currents, and higher voltages where added ohms doesn't affect the operation of the UUT.

As a rule, I do NOT use them on any heavy stuff.

I use inductive current probes, or installed shunts in my sources, which are easily referred to at any time.

I have more than a couple power strips here around the house where all I need do is plug in the device in question, and instantly take a reading on a device.

You guys want to open the line, and put in a meter. My hard installed shunt changes the circuit the least, and can be left in place.

Here. Try this.

Process management? We're discussing POWER MANAGEMENT you stupid dickless mommy's boy! It *is* a big deal these days, moron.

Power management is the only thing between modern processors working and melting. What a DimBUlb...

My test leads are NOT 26 guage......

No you dickless momma's wonder; I stated that mainframes didn't care about power-management some time back (though I didn't really expect you to read, nor remember what you had for lunch).

There is a little difference between a z900 and your 15W prosthesis. The z900 is designed to do some work. Your

*AMAZING* 15W processor is an antique desktop processor that's simply wasting power. ...well, since you're using it, I guess I'm being redundant.

Obviously he needs a dual-processor because he's missing a part of himself. My guess is the left frontal lobe.

...though it could easily be something a bit lower.

BongWater is currently flaming daestrom who made an informative post...When will our DimBulb finally realize that the OP just wanted to get and approximate measurement of his devices? He sure is hung up on the resistance measurement in the test leads of my Fluke... Like .01 ohms is a consideration here. Beware of ButPirateMatter for he be sportin' wood for your bootie!

So you admit that you haven't a clue! Come on DipStick! Even P54Cs used 15W. YOu have a dual P54C-233? I'm impressed!

Sure I could. ...and you've proven me right!

Yes, in fact, I do (50M+ transistors worth of a processor, that's been announced so far). ...but I no longer expect you to learn from those who *DO*. You're too stupid to learn.

You have your own little universe where heat is only transferred by IR radiation and magnetism is a TEM wave. You really should turn in your AA degree (if you got that far). It's not working for you.

...wasting cycles on SETI, it's no small wonder. Get that crap off your system and you will see a power reduction. Of course you may like to believe you're doing something important... Sure!

Do you actually use the same test leads to measure current that you use to measure voltage??? Why???

Well, you're more simple, though far less accurate.

idiot.....ect....."

progresses...Can

This brings to mind "One Flew Over the Cukoos Nest" or is that the DarkMatters Nest..... Perhaps a frontal lobotomy has already been perfomed on our little ButPirateMatter!

Another wonderful product of our educational system! I bet Al Franken is one of his Gods!

Oh sure. He's had is ass handed to him in SED and SEB lately too. He thinks a magnetic field is the same as a TEM wave. A few months ago he insisted that heat could only be transferred by IR. Others tried to correct the moron (including heat transfer by X-Ray), but go figure DimBulb. ...and he claims to be an "engineer".

It's simply amazing that someone so stupid could be so sure of himself that he's willing to make himself into the town fool!

"DarkMatter"

That is irrelevant. The whole argument here is whether or not CPU's dissipate more power when working harder. Aside from programs like SETI and screensavers (processor bound applications) CPU usage in most home computers will only hit 100% sporadically. The simple FACT of the matter is that if you stop running CPU bound software, your temperatures (and power usage) will drop accordingly.

You have simply deactivated any power saving ability of the idle loop and substituted a worthless set of complex mathematical calculations. Why don't you run Folding@home instead? Perhaps you will discover your own cure.

Yes, but if you do it the way you propose, then the meter lead resistance is

*not* going to affect accuracy anywhere near what you calculated.

The *only* way that meter lead resistance of 0.21 ohms could affect the reading like *you* calculated would be if you used the meter on a *current* scale and put it across the 0.1 ohm external resistor.

A lead resistance of 0.21 ohms with the meter on current measurement mode has less than 2% affect on the full scale reading.

If it's so simple, why do you get the wrong accuracy calculation using lead resistance of 0.21 ohms. Or can't you admit a silly mistake.

daestrom

No, it isn't 'my method'. I'm not silly enough to use a meter on current scale with an external shunt. Nor do I bother calculating what the error would be if I were stupid enough to do so, since I wouldn't use the meter that way. I didn't propose a 'method', I only showed that the only way

*your* calculation of 47% error is possible is if you use the current meter INCORRECTLY with an external shunt.

Admit it, your 47% accuracy error was a screw up on your part. Using a DMM on current scale is *not* that inaccurate unless you do something stupid (like use it across an external shunt).

Your post....

You say the shunt and meter circuit are 'added together as they are when in use'. That's a mistake. You don't use a current meter with an external shunt and you know it. But you typed the above, nobody else. And you came up with a 47.6% error, when a properly used DMM on current scale does *not* have that much error.

Or maybe you didn't grasp the *obvious* intent of Ross Mac to use a DMM on the current range *correctly*, without your 0.1 ohm shunt? If one has a DMM capable of current readings in the range desired, it is just as easy as trying to install a precision shunt.

daestrom

P.S. Most DMM's that have current scales in the ranges we're talking about come with 16AWG leads, not 26AWG.