Author Topic: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?  (Read 9068 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline coromonadalix

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5795
  • Country: ca
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2018, 11:29:05 pm »
maybe finding some fluke 187 or 189 nearby ???
 

Offline joeqsmith

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2018, 11:47:15 pm »
For ref, BM869S is on top of the spreadsheet at the moment. BM867S covers my requirements perfectly as well.

Isn't the Fluke 87V one of the worst meters on Joe's list?

In terms of electrical ruggedness, basically any meter that is independently CAT IV UL rated is going to be fine, and that includes the 87V even though it does poorly in Joe's tests.

Joe retested a newer revision of the 87V, it did far better - among the top. Might have been a fluke.

You can always find the most recent data on-line:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cXzYpIoyVm9QJUju4KXqM22CEQZP3_xwWvDyeVwxTy4/edit?usp=sharing

Yep, and just to add a bit more, I had gone back to the original 87V that I had repaired and ran extensive tests on it to try and understand why there was such a drastic difference in the performance between the new and old meter.   In the end, I have no answer.  By design, it should have done very well against my tests.  I ended up turning up the generator for a repeat.  Video is here.   

https://youtu.be/GhslaLKOpKE

Offline joeqsmith

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #52 on: July 10, 2018, 12:24:25 pm »
Isn't the Fluke 87V one of the worst meters on Joe's list?

In terms of electrical ruggedness, basically any meter that is independently CAT IV UL rated is going to be fine, and that includes the 87V even though it does poorly in Joe's tests.


That's not what I have been seeing.  There are a few meters, like the 121GW that actually have performed quite poorly against my tests. In the case of  the 121GW, I've explained the weak point and demonstrated one possible way to improve it.  I suspect when/if the meter becomes available, I plan to run the released version and see if it repeats.     

The AMPROBE AM530 is another meter that did not hold up very well.   IMO, the worse was the Summit/TPI 194II.   

If a meter can't out perform the AMPROBE AM510, IMO, it's not very robust.  So far it does appear that the name brands, Brymen, Fluke, HIOKI have all done very well.   I've ran a fair number of Flukes and the old 87V was the only flyer.  I'm glad a I took the time to repeat the test with a new one and then went back and looked at the old one.  It cements the fact the Fluke as much as I hate to admit it, makes some solid products.   

The two AMPROBEs were made by UNI-T and both are certified.  It's a bit strange and UNI-T makes a UT181A which someone pointed out is also certified.   If that is true, the 181A is by far the worse meter I have looked at for robustness.  Someone even showed that it was certified for the EMC 61326 standard.  Funny is one hit of that stupid little piezo grill ignitor took it out.   I showed one test report where the lab basically did not test the actual inputs to the meter and claimed it passed ESD.   They only looked at the body of the meter.   IMO, seeing tests ran like this, waters down the usefulness of the certs. 

https://youtu.be/PjNXbKlr3MI?t=2866

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5980
  • Country: us
  • Eternally curious
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2018, 01:07:54 pm »
Isn't the Fluke 87V one of the worst meters on Joe's list?

In terms of electrical ruggedness, basically any meter that is independently CAT IV UL rated is going to be fine, and that includes the 87V even though it does poorly in Joe's tests.


That's not what I have been seeing.  There are a few meters, like the 121GW that actually have performed quite poorly against my tests. In the case of  the 121GW, I've explained the weak point and demonstrated one possible way to improve it.  I suspect when/if the meter becomes available, I plan to run the released version and see if it repeats.     

The AMPROBE AM530 is another meter that did not hold up very well.   IMO, the worse was the Summit/TPI 194II.   

If a meter can't out perform the AMPROBE AM510, IMO, it's not very robust.  So far it does appear that the name brands, Brymen, Fluke, HIOKI have all done very well.   I've ran a fair number of Flukes and the old 87V was the only flyer.  I'm glad a I took the time to repeat the test with a new one and then went back and looked at the old one.  It cements the fact the Fluke as much as I hate to admit it, makes some solid products.   

The two AMPROBEs were made by UNI-T and both are certified.  It's a bit strange and UNI-T makes a UT181A which someone pointed out is also certified.   If that is true, the 181A is by far the worse meter I have looked at for robustness.  Someone even showed that it was certified for the EMC 61326 standard.  Funny is one hit of that stupid little piezo grill ignitor took it out.   I showed one test report where the lab basically did not test the actual inputs to the meter and claimed it passed ESD.   They only looked at the body of the meter.   IMO, seeing tests ran like this, waters down the usefulness of the certs. 

https://youtu.be/PjNXbKlr3MI?t=2866
Between the two of you I see a bit of confusion in how you are approaching the concept of "ruggedness": a meter that survives the tests can be seen as electrically rugged, but I can also see a meter that does not blow up in your face as physically/mechanically rugged as well. The latter is what CAT is all about (physical integrity under an electrical event).

In other words, your tests check the survivability rate, while CAT ratings are focused in the survivability of the operator. A certification agency will only go to the lengths required by the norm, not anywhere further (unless you pay up more).

That does not mean the testing companies are infallible - I know from experience they are not.

All that said, I would love to see the standards also cover the survivability, and that is one of the aspects your tests have become so succesful: it deals with a specification that goes beyond the datasheet.

One note: the peizo grill test outside of the case is required for electromagnetic immunity tests (EMI). Also, saying the UT181 follows "EMC 61326" only means it will not interfere with other equipments in its close range (electromagnetic compatibility).
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 02:37:09 pm by rsjsouza »
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline bd139Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23018
  • Country: gb
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2018, 01:47:39 pm »
Yep. CAT rating is "this will not blow the shit out of you if you stay within the ratings" and "the ratings are roughly connected to where you are working on a supply" and that's it. There is no guarantee that the meter has to survive it, but merely fail safely under fault conditions.

Regardless you can still kill yourself in a thousand other interesting ways but at least the meter going woosh is one vector closed off here.

Edit: the BM867S just arrived. It's a monster

« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 01:49:55 pm by bd139 »
 
The following users thanked this post: rsjsouza, 001

Offline exe

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2559
  • Country: nl
  • self-educated hobbyist
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #55 on: July 10, 2018, 02:50:06 pm »
Why are they not showing the same value? Was Keysight adjusted to show the round value?

(I'm not a voltnut, but...)
 

Offline bd139Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23018
  • Country: gb
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2018, 03:00:34 pm »
If you look closely I accidentally hit the hold button on the U1241C  :palm: ... they're both in spec :)
 

Offline Hydron

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 978
  • Country: gb
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #57 on: July 10, 2018, 05:11:24 pm »
Congrats on the purchase, and I see what you mean about the Telonic price for the BM86xS being sharp! If I ever need another meter to add to the collection (Fluke 87V, 121GW plus a variety of chinese cheapies) then I'll be looking hard at the Brymen. Look forward to hearing any further thoughts on the monster.
 

Offline bd139Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23018
  • Country: gb
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #58 on: July 10, 2018, 05:16:20 pm »
I will write something up when I get to play with it properly. So far been too busy :(
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3575
  • Country: us
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #59 on: July 10, 2018, 05:25:32 pm »
No.

It has an unmatched long term record of reliability, accuracy, stability and ruggedness. And it has all the important features and none of the fluff.
 

Offline exe

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2559
  • Country: nl
  • self-educated hobbyist
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #60 on: July 10, 2018, 06:23:14 pm »
It's interesting how Brymen got their reputation up recent years. 3-5 years ago 87V would "win" over 869s hands down (by number of people suggesting it, I think it was this thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/if-brymen-bm869s-is-cheaper-and-as-good-why-people-would-still-buy-fluke/). Now it's (almost) the opposite.

I wonder if Brymen going to make any new model soon. I know that DMMs are not like smartphones, but still :)
 

Offline bd139Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23018
  • Country: gb
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #61 on: July 10, 2018, 06:50:03 pm »
Fluke pricing is ridiculous here which is what kills me. An 87V is £576 from a non hooky seller.

The Brymen was £129. My U1241C was £285.

Reputation has been well earned by Brymen by having genuine certifiable ratings.

Humans don’t like their cheese being moved though which is why Fluke still do pretty well out of the low to mid range meters. High end handhelds they own for now.

Honestly though the amount of fucked up and broken 87V’s I see fly past on eBay where the thing has nearly cracked the casing and the display across makes me worry about the real robustness of them.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 06:53:13 pm by bd139 »
 

Offline 2N3055

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6451
  • Country: hr
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #62 on: July 10, 2018, 07:20:33 pm »
Good reputation is more a proof that things used to be great in the past, than real metrics how are things being done now.
While good reputation has a meaning, it is not a guarantee that all is well now.
Many very reputable companies in past had a change in management, they went for "profit optimisation" and started making overpriced crap, milking reputation...
It is happening all the time. I'm not saying Fluke is like that. I'm just sayin I don't blindly believe to Tektronix, Keysight, Fluke..... (put your own list of "legendary companies" here...)

Fluke was pioneer of handhelds... 20 years ago... They are not anymore... Nobody is. That market developed and there are many choices. So pick your choice...
 
The following users thanked this post: Synthtech

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11341
  • Country: ch
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #63 on: July 10, 2018, 09:04:39 pm »
Fluke pricing is ridiculous here which is what kills me. An 87V is £576 from a non hooky seller.

The Brymen was £129. My U1241C was £285.

Reputation has been well earned by Brymen by having genuine certifiable ratings.

Humans don’t like their cheese being moved though which is why Fluke still do pretty well out of the low to mid range meters. High end handhelds they own for now.

Honestly though the amount of fucked up and broken 87V’s I see fly past on eBay where the thing has nearly cracked the casing and the display across makes me worry about the real robustness of them.
Did you follow my advice and check the price of the 28 II (which is simply the ruggedized 87V)? As i said, in some places, like here in Switzerland, the 28 II actually costs less than the 87V!!

I think the smashed Flukes for sale reflect only that these are tools that actually get used in industry, and some small percentage get absolutely trashed. You don’t see lesser brands like that because they’re not trusted enough to ever get put in those environments!!
 

Offline bd139Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23018
  • Country: gb
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #64 on: July 10, 2018, 09:18:53 pm »
Yeah it was fractionally less but still too expensive.

My U1241C is the beater. It’s fully ruggedised, IP67 etc. Purchase criteria for that was surviving a drop and being rained on when I’m playing with solar installation or fixing my POS car.
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11341
  • Country: ch
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #65 on: July 10, 2018, 09:25:30 pm »
For sure, I doubt many of us on here come close to actually needing the ruggedness of a fluke. I got myself my 87V not because I needed it, but because I’d lusted after a fluke since I was a little kid!

That said, I’ve come to trust it more than my Keysight (I have a U1252B): despite having identical fast peak specs, the fluke picks up much shorter transients (at least in DC amps) that the Keysight just misses. I forget what other oddness I’ve spotted in the Keysight, but in the end, I never doubt what I see on the fluke’s screen, but with the Keysight some doubt lingers.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 11:49:09 am by tooki »
 

Offline bd139Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23018
  • Country: gb
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #66 on: July 10, 2018, 09:33:15 pm »
I know the feeling with the Keysight actually. I set it to 40 readings a second and the doubts went away for me fortunately :)

To note I’ve owned two 77’s, two 8024B’s, an 8050A, 8000A, 8010A as well over the years. I don’t dislike fluke but couldn’t justify the cost really.

Edit: used the new Brymen to debug some problems in a breadboard this evening. It’s damn fast.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 09:36:55 pm by bd139 »
 

Offline joeqsmith

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #67 on: July 10, 2018, 10:00:45 pm »
Between the two of you I see a bit of confusion in how you are approaching the concept of "ruggedness": a meter that survives the tests can be seen as electrically rugged, but I can also see a meter that does not blow up in your face as physically/mechanically rugged as well. The latter is what CAT is all about (physical integrity under an electrical event).

In other words, your tests check the survivability rate, while CAT ratings are focused in the survivability of the operator. A certification agency will only go to the lengths required by the norm, not anywhere further (unless you pay up more).

That does not mean the testing companies are infallible - I know from experience they are not.

All that said, I would love to see the standards also cover the survivability, and that is one of the aspects your tests have become so succesful: it deals with a specification that goes beyond the datasheet.

One note: the peizo grill test outside of the case is required for electromagnetic immunity tests (EMI). Also, saying the UT181 follows "EMC 61326" only means it will not interfere with other equipments in its close range (electromagnetic compatibility).

I assumed because Dave had specifically pointed out my testing, he knew what it was about.  But you are correct, that may not be true. 

Are you a involved with producing the standards in any way?  Or perhaps a safety inspector?   If not, do you at least have a copy of the standards?   I've mentioned a few times about contacting various companies who design handhelds and their response's.   I've mentioned to Dave that it would be great to have an expert interviewed where we could post our questions.  Maybe you can fill that gap?

Offline joeqsmith

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #68 on: July 10, 2018, 10:14:19 pm »
It's interesting how Brymen got their reputation up recent years. 3-5 years ago 87V would "win" over 869s hands down (by number of people suggesting it, I think it was this thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/if-brymen-bm869s-is-cheaper-and-as-good-why-people-would-still-buy-fluke/). Now it's (almost) the opposite.

I wonder if Brymen going to make any new model soon. I know that DMMs are not like smartphones, but still :)

That's back when Lightages first told me about Brymen.  I've been abusing them ever since.   :-DD   All that abuse made public may have contributed to the change in attitude.   

Real question now is will the 121GW be left in the dust?  I've got my rotary switch tester all ready to go. 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11341
  • Country: ch
Re: Any reason not to choose an 87V in 2018?
« Reply #69 on: July 11, 2018, 11:56:45 am »
I know the feeling with the Keysight actually. I set it to 40 readings a second and the doubts went away for me fortunately :)

To note I’ve owned two 77’s, two 8024B’s, an 8050A, 8000A, 8010A as well over the years. I don’t dislike fluke but couldn’t justify the cost really.

Edit: used the new Brymen to debug some problems in a breadboard this evening. It’s damn fast.
Umm, are we talking about the same thing? I’m talking about the peak min-max hold. Both the 87V and the U1252B state 250 μs for repetitive events, 1ms for single events (that is, far, far higher than 40/sec). But the Fluke captured far larger current spikes in my testing, leading me to believe it’s reacting much faster, while the Keysight showed much smaller peaks, which I believe to be a bit closer to the average value, not the peak.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf