At 06:52 AM 2/20/2005, you wrote:
>Since both are so cheap nowadays, is there any advantage to using a
>digital vs an analog meter in a test like this?

These days, it's pretty much just a matter of preference. The only trouble
I have with a digital is in monitoring changing conditions. Most newer
digital meters are better now, but it used to be that (say) the voltage on
a circuit where it keeps jittering up and down due to an intermittent short
to ground, it would be impossible to read because the voltage would vary
faster than the display could show it. Even with better digitals nowadays,
I personally prefer an analog for stuff like that because I have an easier
time understanding what's going on when I can actually see the analog
needle jumping back and forth. Newer digitals have a little bar graph at
the bottom that mimics an analog needle, but my brain is too dumb to read
'em properly. Digitals are more accurate, though, particularly when
measuring resistance. On the other hand, digital meters are absolutely
worthless is the internal battery is dead. Even worse, some don't measure
accurately when the internal battery gets LOW-- something to watch out for.
For that reason alone I actually carry one of each. If I ever have trouble
on the side of the road, I don't ever want pull out my meter and find that
I'd left it turned on and the battery is dead! I usually use the digital,
but if I get confusing reading with it, I double check with the analog. The
digital is just a $18 cheap Chinese model I got at All Electronics
<http://tinyurl.com/6tcos>, and the analog is a small handheld I picked up
at Radio Shack some 20 years ago. They don't sell the same one, but this
one <http://tinyurl.com/6z8k4> is very similar. I have a $200 Fluke digital
meter for work, but for occasional automotive work a cheapie meter is
really perfectly adequate.

John Bange
'90 Vanagon "Geldsauger"