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.

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,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: knowemf
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 10:02 AM
  Subject: [eSens] 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.







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

  Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Charles.  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

--- In [hidden email], "charles" <charles@...> wrote:

Hello Ann,

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

There is also a german version.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: knowemf
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:38 AM
  Subject: [eSens] Re: Compare meters accuracy - Tes-92 versus Cornet ED-65


  Thanks Charles.  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

  --- In [hidden email], "charles" <charles@...> wrote:
  >
  > 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,
  > Charles Claessens
  > member Verband Baubiologie
  > www.milieuziektes.nl
  > www.milieuziektes.be
  > www.hetbitje.nl
  > checked by Norton
  >
  >
  >   ----- Original Message -----
  >   From: knowemf
  >   To: [hidden email]
  >   Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 10:02 AM
  >   Subject: [eSens] 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.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >   ------------------------------------
  >
  >   Yahoo! Groups Links
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >




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

  Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]