Alternative to annual calibration

[DNS1]

May well be a stupid question, but is regularly checking my test instruments against a calibration checkbox an alternative to having an annual calibration certificate in the eyes of the schemes?

 

[Dubbo]

May well be a stupid question, but is regularly checking my test instruments against a calibration checkbox an alternative to having an annual calibration certificate in the eyes of the schemes?

No, the check box is just for reference so you Know if the reading differ to much you to put it in sooner

 

[oldtimer]

Sounds good and with modern electronics they don't drift as much and if they do there are broken but me thinks it has more to do with the tester getting checked by an independant third party. As for the Schemies well they are a law unto themselves.

I only get my 1553 & KT71 checked for calibration as my 25 year old fluke is fine

 

[Marvo]

We check and calibrate all out own test equipment against reference components and a signal generator every six months. We keep recordsand logs of their accuracies and we certify them if they're withing the manufacturers stated range of accuracies. I would hasten to add we're not in the UK and this is acceptable practice, personally I see no problem with it either.

 

[Octopus]

You need to ask your scheme.

Elesca require to see the current calibration cert.

 

[DNS1]

Cheers for the replies chaps.

As oldtimer says, I couldn't imagine too much drifting with modern equipment. Maybe the next function for MFTs would be a built in auto-calibration system... Can't imagine it would be too difficult to do.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

The NIC are happy with us going for a longer period between factory calibrations if we routinely check the testers in our workshop more often and cross check them against each other. FWIW the type of work we do is quite easy on the MFTs, they don't get lugged about too much as once on a job they will tend to stay there for some time, they get shipped in flight cases and generally pampered. Also, most of our resistance and impedance figures are known in advance so we tend to spot a suspect reading when it happens. In other words the potential risk from calibrating less often is more than compensated by the way we use the testers. Any sign of trouble, if one instrument disagrees with another or turns in more than a couple of odd-looking results, then off it goes to the cal house.

I agree, decent instruments can be impressively stable. I have two identical Fluke multimeters, both 18 years old. One has been in my toolbox, used daily, been round hundreds of baggage conveyors in dozens of airports, submerged in water, buried in sand in the Sahara and in snow in Siberia. Unlike the MFTs It has seen a bit of the world. Its twin is the backup, lives in a cupboard, never done a day's work in its life. The two get compared to a precision meter on the bench every 6 months and neither has ever been adjusted - they still agree to better than 0.1% on DC volts.

 

[Dcf]

My metrel pat has a built in checkbox function that is quite handy.
dont know why all meters don't have it.
it must be relatively easy to do.

 

[VoltzElectrical]

as far as i am aware, annual calibration is NOT required as long as you 'regularly' (whatever that means) check and record against known values (e.g. CalCard).

Stuff the schemes, and annual calibration!

Vive le Sparks!

 

[GLENNSPARK]

as far as i am aware, annual calibration is NOT required as long as you 'regularly' (whatever that means) check and record against known values (e.g. CalCard).

Stuff the schemes, and annual calibration!

Vive le Sparks!

or a socket outlet for instance...with a known Zs value...