Stephen, > "Unfortunately he never showed actual real time volts and amps going in, so it's anybody's guess how "true" the RMS numbers from the Fluke 123 really are (unless you've run your own tests on that particular meter). Sticking the label "true RMS" on something is a lot easier than making it really produce a true RMS reading, particularly when it's generating a real time trace rather than a single number."
Yes, I think you answered you own question... but there is/was a dedicated Y!Group for the MAHG at one time, and all of this should be in those archives - if the group did not die off. As I recall, Naudin simply took an amp reading and in some kind of mental lapse, divided it by twenty, supposedly to account for the 5% duty; and labeled it "true RMS". Terry might remember it better, but it is my recollection that a number of EEs who were on the forum at the time agreed it was a stupid error. No problem there - we all make them; but the failure to correct the problem is my issue with both Naudin and Moller - who continued to use the results for years to raise money for his GIF.net (which hired Naudin) despite being warned many times of the error. Jones
