# Be Wary of CT obfuscation

**URL:** <https://community.openenergymonitor.org/t/be-wary-of-ct-obfuscation/6356>\
**Category:** IoTaWatt\
**Created:** [24 January 2018 19:19 UTC](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/t/be-wary-of-ct-obfuscation/6356 "2018-01-24T19:19:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 16

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dBC](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@dBC](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/u/dBC)\
**Post date:** [26 January 2018 13:31 UTC](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/t/be-wary-of-ct-obfuscation/6356/16 "2018-01-26T13:31:32Z")

</div>

I’m trying to work out whether the difference is we’re just seeing different amounts of distortion or whether we’re processing it differently. It’s hard to tell just eyeballing your distorted ~~Input\_3~~ input\_4 in post 2, to my 60Hz 20A distortion plot which you can see in [this post](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/t/be-wary-of-ct-saturation/6353).

Could you attach the raw sample pairs for both the Input\_3 and Input\_4 plots of your post 2 above please? That will give me a distorted one and a not distorted one as a reference. I should then be able to compare your CT distortion levels with mine.

---

_[View the full topic](https://community.openenergymonitor.org/t/be-wary-of-ct-obfuscation/6356)._