[SOLVED-BM867]Hard dilemma: GW121 or Brymen BM867s?

[Terry01]

I've decided to go with BM867s and IR thermomether with thermocouple.
One last question:
Did anyoune used lithium primaries in their DMM's?
I've found that: https://www.ultralifecorporation.com/PrivateDocuments/BR_9V_White_Paper.pdf
for very reasonable price: 7.5EUR

Nice 1! I'll second you won't be unhappy with your new meter. I use lithium in my 289 & 867s and also my DE-5000. They all work exactly the same as with normal 9v or AA's. The only thing I would say is watch the shape of the 9v. The one I use in my 867s was for my DE-5000 but the battery was completely square and would not fit the DE-5000 but fits the Brymen no probs so I had to bet another for my DE-5000. The battery was exactly the same otherwise but the square corners were a no go for the DE-5000.

If you want I can check for you which make will fit your 867s?

Enjoy your new meter! 

[Specmaster]

I've decided to go with BM867s and IR thermomether with thermocouple.
One last question:
Did anyoune used lithium primaries in their DMM's?
I've found that: https://www.ultralifecorporation.com/PrivateDocuments/BR_9V_White_Paper.pdf
for very reasonable price: 7.5EUR

Nice 1! I'll second you won't be unhappy with your new meter. I use lithium in my 289 & 867s and also my DE-5000. They all work exactly the same as with normal 9v or AA's. The only thing I would say is watch the shape of the 9v. The one I use in my 867s was for my DE-5000 but the battery was completely square and would not fit the DE-5000 but fits the Brymen no probs so I had to bet another for my DE-5000. The battery was exactly the same otherwise but the square corners were a no go for the DE-5000.

If you want I can check for you which make will fit your 867s?

Enjoy your new meter! 

@Terry01, I'm not entirely sure I follow what you was saying here about the Lithium battery not fitting, surely if it's a PP3 equivalent then it should fit anything that a  PP3 fits? Am I missing something here, it makes zero sense to me to produce something that will only fit a few products that have more generous battery compartments?? 

Do you find your 289 a heavy user of batteries? Martin Lorton said that on his video channel and was one of the reasons why he also got himself a 867.

[coppice]

One last question:
Did anyoune used lithium primaries in their DMM's?
I've found that: https://www.ultralifecorporation.com/PrivateDocuments/BR_9V_White_Paper.pdf
for very reasonable price: 7.5EUR

One year ago I had a 25 year old Sanwa DMM in near new condition. 6 months ago I had a 25.5 year old Sanwa DMM totally devastated by leaking alkaline batteries. Right now, the use of a lithium battery in something where the battery isn't changed very often sounds really good to me.

[Davy]

I Got the Greenlee  DM867A I that's the same as the Bryman.  Only one caveat, be sure you get the 'A' version, the DM867 versions have poor  backlighting.  Saw a comparison somewhere between the Fluke 179, the DM867A had slightly better accuracy, obviously Flukes are better built regarding internal flashover.

Use Duracell in mine.

Dave

[ov_darkness]

@Specmaster: regarding lithium primaries, we have a saying here in Poland: why dog is licking his balls? Because he can ;P
TBH: I really don't like alkaline and NiMH. I almost exclusively use li-ion's for all my stuff.
Lithium primaries have much higher voltage stability, higher capacity. They work in huge range of temperatures and won't leak.
 Actually, their only downside is price, but I can live with that.

IR meter I've chosen is Velleman DEM102 (70EUR). It measures up to 500C (in high end FDMs you have nozzle temps higher than 350C), have little bit btter optics than standard: 13:1
There's also more expensive model DEM103 (111EUR) with 30:1 optics.

As nozzles of FDM printers are less than 1cm it'd be nice to have good optics.
Thermocouple is quite interesting for me, as I could test if thermistors/PT100's/thermocouples in printers are not shot.
Also, I can stick it in SLS chamber and check if pyrometers are measuring right.

Or just shine some fancy lasers on a flor and watch my cats go wild XD

[Specmaster]

Hmm, maybe then all batteries carry a risk of some sort, is it not true that Lithium batteries can also catch fire, there was an airliner recently where a mobile phone battery caught fire that caused an on board emergency?

[ov_darkness]

Lithium primaries (most common ones LiMnO2, LiFeS2)are very stable. There are some chemistries though that are sometimes used, and can be dangerous if shorted (LiSOCl2)

Some lithium rechargeables (LiCoO2) can be quite unstable when damaged, pierced, or overcharged. Other like LiFePO4 are very, very stable.

[rsjsouza]

I Got the Greenlee  DM867A I that's the same as the Bryman.  Only one caveat, be sure you get the 'A' version, the DM867 versions have poor  backlighting.  Saw a comparison somewhere between the Fluke 179, the DM867A had slightly better accuracy, obviously Flukes are better built regarding internal flashover.

Use Duracell in mine.

Dave

The DM867A is the same as the BM857S. I agree on the terrible backlight on the non-A (or S) version - I have a BM857.
Otherwise, they are excellent meters.

The Fluke 179 wins over the BM857/859 (I also had a 179) in both build quality and specifications, but the BM867/869 win at least in specifications: they are tested to higher CAT ratings. I can't talk about build quality as I don't have one of these models.

[Davy]

I think this is the video Brymen v Fluke.... there's loads of em' popped up.

http://www.mjlorton.com/multimeter-review-buyers-guide-comparison-brymen-tbm867-vs-fluke-87-v/

[Specmaster]

I Got the Greenlee  DM867A I that's the same as the Bryman.  Only one caveat, be sure you get the 'A' version, the DM867 versions have poor  backlighting.  Saw a comparison somewhere between the Fluke 179, the DM867A had slightly better accuracy, obviously Flukes are better built regarding internal flashover.

Use Duracell in mine.

Dave

I think you will find that is not quite right, IIRC the Fluke failed the transient tests at somewhere around 4 to 5KV but the Brymen went right upto 13KV which is in excess of its specification which is another reason for it being Martin's favorite meter.

[rsjsouza]

I Got the Greenlee  DM867A I that's the same as the Bryman.  Only one caveat, be sure you get the 'A' version, the DM867 versions have poor  backlighting.  Saw a comparison somewhere between the Fluke 179, the DM867A had slightly better accuracy, obviously Flukes are better built regarding internal flashover.

Use Duracell in mine.

Dave

I think you will find that is not quite right, IIRC the Fluke failed the transient tests at somewhere around 4 to 5KV but the Brymen went right upto 13KV which is in excess of its specification which is another reason for it being Martin's favorite meter.

Dave, what exactly do you mean by "better built regarding internal flashover"? If you mean a physical integrity of its enclosure during this event, then there is a strong possibility the 179 is, in fact, better than the Brymen/Greenlee. If you mean internal circuitry integrity, then Specmaster's reference indicates the opposite.
All in all, just keep in mind that a premature failure in joeqsmith's transient tests only tells part of the story and does not mean an overall greater robustness.

[joeqsmith]

I never ran a Fluke 179 or the DM867A.  If only there was a spreadsheet that had this information.

[Specmaster]

I never ran a Fluke 179 or the DM867A.  If only there was a spreadsheet that had this information.

Correct, IIRC it was the Fluke 287 and the Brymen BM869 (which is the same as BM867 but with temperature).

[Muxr]

Just beware the BM869's size, I find it annoyingly big for normal bench use.

Its no bigger than many Fluke meters, I have Fluke 25 and 27 meters and they are almost identical in size so as far as I'm concerned, not an issue, but that extra safety factor of Cat4 is a big bonus.

Fluke 25 and 27 are also unusually large multi-meters. They are tanks though.

[Specmaster]

Just beware the BM869's size, I find it annoyingly big for normal bench use.

Its no bigger than many Fluke meters, I have Fluke 25 and 27 meters and they are almost identical in size so as far as I'm concerned, not an issue, but that extra safety factor of Cat4 is a big bonus.

Fluke 25 and 27 are also unusually large multi-meters. They are tanks though.

True, but so are Fluke 287 and Fluke 289 which is what was used in some of those tests.

[joeqsmith]

I never ran a Fluke 179 or the DM867A.  If only there was a spreadsheet that had this information.

Correct, IIRC it was the Fluke 287 and the Brymen BM869 (which is the same as BM867 but with temperature).

I never ran a Fluke 287 or the Brymen BM869.  If only there was a spreadsheet that had this information.

[Specmaster]

I never ran a Fluke 179 or the DM867A.  If only there was a spreadsheet that had this information.

Correct, IIRC it was the Fluke 287 and the Brymen BM869 (which is the same as BM867 but with temperature).

I never ran a Fluke 287 or the Brymen BM869.  If only there was a spreadsheet that had this information.

I have watched an awful amount of your superb videos along with a load Martin Lorton's videos and you both feature in loads of videos the BM869 and I thought that you had also ran tests on the Fluke 289, but I'm currently unable to locate that video so maybe I was getting that confused with Martin's video where he most certainly has featured it. You have though featured the Fluke 189 which is the 289 predecessor.

Here are links to just some of your many videos where the BM869 is featured.

[rsjsouza]

I never ran a Fluke 179 or the DM867A.  If only there was a spreadsheet that had this information.

Correct, IIRC it was the Fluke 287 and the Brymen BM869 (which is the same as BM867 but with temperature).

I never ran a Fluke 287 or the Brymen BM869.  If only there was a spreadsheet that had this information.

I haven't confirmed Specmaster's information when I posted earlier, but there is no entry for a 179 and two entries for the BM869S, which may be a completely different meter when compared to the non-S version.

[Specmaster]

I never ran a Fluke 179 or the DM867A.  If only there was a spreadsheet that had this information.

Correct, IIRC it was the Fluke 287 and the Brymen BM869 (which is the same as BM867 but with temperature).

I never ran a Fluke 287 or the Brymen BM869.  If only there was a spreadsheet that had this information.

I haven't confirmed Specmaster's information when I posted earlier, but there is no entry for a 179 and two entries for the BM869S, which may be a completely different meter when compared to the non-S version.

I have never seen any mention of any other versions of the BM867s or the BM869s which seem to be universally shortened to just 867 and 869, here is a link directly their website and their range of multimeters and it only lists 867s and 869s as you can verify. https://brymen.eu/product-category/multimetry/

EDIT'
I have seen mention on this forum about version A and version S and that was in relation to the backlight but I have yet to see any mention of the A or any other version apart from the S on any official Brymen publication.

[joeqsmith]

I have performed several tests on the Brymen BM869S.  The previous version was obsolete before I bought mine.  I had contacted Brymen about the differences after having been asked so many times.  That's been some time ago but I did post their response.   

I did borrow a friend's Fluke 289 to use as a comparable with the UNI-T UT181A.   While I show the the boot times, screen update rates, font sizes, menus and such, everything was non-destructive which is why it is not listed in my spreadsheet.   

As far as the 13KV comment, assuming it was in regards to the BM869s, if you look at the spreadsheet you would find that I went from having it pass at 5.9KV to failing at 13KV.   No testing was performed between these two levels.   Of course if I attach a meter to a 1.5V AAA battery and it survives and then attach it to a 100KV, 100KA source and it fails, you could say the meter didn't fail until 100KV but it would be VERY misleading.   People made these types of comments with other meters as well.  In the case the the BM869s, if you look at the spreadsheet or watch the videos, Brymen provided me a second one for a switch life cycle test that I wanted to run.   I repeated the transient tests on this meter using finer increments.  It was damaged at 10KV.    The same components had failed.  I picked some other parts to use that were a drop-in and repeated the tests but that data was never recorded in the spreadsheet.

From the Fluke side of things, there was only that one outlier.  That was a very old 87V.  To this day I have no clue as to why that meter behaved so poorly.  I did a full video where I took that meter back apart and show all the repairs, make a model of it and eventually repeat the tests.     Besides that failure, every Fluke I have looked at has survived beyond the levels the new generator can apply.   In other words, more electrically robust than the AMPROBE AM510 that was the runner up in my original tests. 

Again, its all documented.  There's no need to guess what was done or how the meters performed. 

[Specmaster]

AFAIK we are all talking about the BM869s and BM867s as this is the current meter being sold by the vendors and Brymen alike and is the very meter the OP is I believe looking to purchase. I'm totally unaware of amy earlier version of either of these meters and so all my discussions are based purely upon the current production models. At no point in your video did I recall you mentioning that you stopped testing the BM869s at 5.9KV and then ran a randem test at 13KV where upon it failed, in fact your video seemed to impart that the meter passed all the tests on the transients and only failed at 13KV, there was no mention otherwise, so that was very misleading.
 

[joeqsmith]

AFAIK we are all talking about the BM869s and BM867s as this is the current meter being sold by the vendors and Brymen alike and is the very meter the OP is I believe looking to purchase. I'm totally unaware of amy earlier version of either of these meters and so all my discussions are based purely upon the current production models. At no point in your video did I recall you mentioning that you stopped testing the BM869s at 5.9KV and then ran a randem test at 13KV where upon it failed, in fact your video seemed to impart that the meter passed all the tests on the transients and only failed at 13KV, there was no mention otherwise, so that was very misleading.

I am not sure how your inability to comprehend what you are watching or reading becomes misleading on my part.  The tests that are not ran are marked NT (Not Tested).   The spreadsheet clearly shows no testing was performed between these two levels.

If you had followed along you would know that the 13KV level that the original BM869s failed at was not some random test as you put it.  If you cherry pick parts of the videos or only have watched a few of them, you may not have that history.    Still the spreadsheet along does give a very good clue at to what happened when you compare the first set of tests against all of the later ones.   

[Specmaster]

AFAIK we are all talking about the BM869s and BM867s as this is the current meter being sold by the vendors and Brymen alike and is the very meter the OP is I believe looking to purchase. I'm totally unaware of amy earlier version of either of these meters and so all my discussions are based purely upon the current production models. At no point in your video did I recall you mentioning that you stopped testing the BM869s at 5.9KV and then ran a randem test at 13KV where upon it failed, in fact your video seemed to impart that the meter passed all the tests on the transients and only failed at 13KV, there was no mention otherwise, so that was very misleading.

I am not sure how your inability to comprehend what you are watching or reading becomes misleading on my part.  The tests that are not ran are marked NT (Not Tested).   The spreadsheet clearly shows no testing was performed between these two levels.

If you had followed along you would know that the 13KV level that the original BM869s failed at was not some random test as you put it.  If you cherry pick parts of the videos or only have watched a few of them, you may not have that history.    Still the spreadsheet along does give a very good clue at to what happened when you compare the first set of tests against all of the later ones.   

While I’m a subscriber to your excellent channel, along with a plethora of other channels, I discovered your videos on the Brymen BM689s as a direct result of doing a google search for reviews and information on the Brymen BM867/869 series of meters because I was thinking about purchasing one. This is how many of us today make purchasing decisions and in that particular video you just mentioned that it had failed at 13KV. I had also watched previously some of your excellent videos where you had for the sake of clarity and to keep the audience with you had either speeded up the transient testing followed by functional testing after each cycle of 5 transients in both the +ve and -ve cycles in the various meter modes, or cut some of the stages out during the editing process to keep the video length down to an acceptable length.
The information that I gleaned from that video, and I suspect many people except ardent followers of all your videos, would have assumed what I did because we have been conditioned over the years of TV and cinema alike to automatically fill in the blanks to complete the story which has to be condensed down to certain length.
I was not aware of the existence of the spreadsheet until today since you mentioned it, I went in search of it, and yes it does in fact show that the 869 had not been subjected to same tests as many of the others had been (was there a particular reason for this by the way?)

This is why I said that the information presented in the video was misleading, not in any suggesting that it was anything else other than purely accidental.
Anyway, you, Martin and a few others on YT helped me to make up my own mind that the meter was indeed very worthy of being purchased and I’m extremely happy with my purchase just I’m very happy with my Flukes but to get a Fluke with the same capabilities of the 867 would have meant that I was looking at having to invest at least double what the 867 cost me so it was a no brainer for me.
The meter must still continue to impress you and the other video bloggers as you all still use it as reference point to compare other meters by in videos being produced now, and that again speaks volumes about the overall quality of the meter, a cheap and nasty DT830B it is not. 

Perhaps if I could make a suggestion here as a consumer of your product, might it be an idea to include a reference to where the spreadsheet for further in depth information can be found added into your usual signing off on a video, maybe a as an on screen annotation at the end?

[joeqsmith]

...

I was not aware of the existence of the spreadsheet until today since you mentioned it, I went in search of it, and yes it does in fact show that the 869 had not been subjected to same tests as many of the others had been (was there a particular reason for this by the way?)

...

Perhaps if I could make a suggestion here as a consumer of your product, might it be an idea to include a reference to where the spreadsheet for further in depth information can be found added into your usual signing off on a video, maybe a as an on screen annotation at the end?

It's not really much of a product.  I'm not making any money from it.  The complete opposite actually.   

I add the link to the FAQ and spreadsheet to the descriptions now.  It's always been in the very first post of thread I started way back when that covers these tests.  It's also linked in the About menu off my main page.   

Yes, there was a reason the first BM859s was tested this way.  It was the same reason that I skipped all of the levels on the UT139C and the Fluke 87V that people were so emotional about.   

Old story compressing three years into a few paragraphs.. 

Early on I played around with some damaged meters I had ran to get a feel for what sort of levels would be required to damage a meter.  I then bought the first set of $50 and under class meters and designed a generator to run them.  Every time the meters would survive, I would have to redesign and construct the generator to increase the transient.    By the time I was down to only two meters, the AMPROBE AM510 and the Fluke 101, the generator had been rebuilt several times.   After the AMPROBE was damaged, I continued to push the Fluke 101 to see just how much it could handle.   I made it to 12KV.   There was a member on this site that had been following the thread and videos that had access to an actual IEC combo generator.   They were very interested in seeing if the Fluke 101 would actually survive at these level on a commercial generator.    After they disclosed their intent, I wanted to make sure the 101 was not on the edge.  So I pushed the levels to 13KV with a 100us FWHH using the 2ohm source, knowing they were going to test at 12KV 50us FWHH.   The 101 survived both of our independent tests.   

Fast forward to the second set of meters donated by 5KY.  You have no idea how much effort it was to run that first set of meters.  There was no way I wanted to repeat that and now that I had some idea on what I needed to expose the meters to, I set out to design a programmable transient generator with the sole purpose to stress the meter's input stages to failure.  I did not want to use any of the parts from the original generator in case I ever wanted to go back and repeat that high level test.   I set the upper limit of this generator based on where the AMPROBE AM510 was damaged from the first set.   Assuming any meter that survives to that level is going to be fairly robust, electrically. 

The BM869s was part of that second set.  I ran it along with all the other meters.  In the end, there were only two meters alive.  The Brymen, and the Fluke 107.   I was in communications with Brymen throughout the tests.  I made them aware it had survived and that I was thinking to expose it to the same levels that the Fluke 101 had been tested to.  They were very interested in seeing this test ran.  Something I continue to see with Brymen.  They know the meters are on a level playing field with me and they will willing to show what they have.  Anyway, they actually offer to replace/repair the meter if I damage it.  So I run the test on both the 107 and BM869s.   The 107 survived and the BM869s was damaged.   

People wanted to know how close the BM869s was to the Flukes.   I had already repeated testing on the UNI-T UT139C for this same reason and decided to go back and modify the original transient generator to give it some means to be programmed.  After this,  I started running meters at even higher levels.   It became apparent that there were companies that knew how to make very robust meters and others that were left in the dust. 

There was a lot of chat on this site from the Fluke fanboys about how the 87V would out live the BM879s.  The general thought was, time will tell.   I wanted to accelerate this so I started thinking about how to life cycle the selector switches.  I spoke with Brymen about running a life cycle test on the BM869s.  I showed them what I was doing and they were all in.  They sent me, free of charge a new BM869s to run this test on.  The meter held up very well to this test.  Dare I say second only to the Fluke 17B+ I had tested.  Yes, I will.     

When it was all done, I decided to take that same meter which at that time had not been exposed to any transient tests and decided to repeat the testing at the higher levels to get a better idea how it would perform.   Eventually I damaged the meter but again, I was able to repair it.   The failure was the same as the original meter.  just some leaking parts in the high speed clamp.  So I hunted down what I thought would handle these stress levels and made another video where I modified the meter using them and proceeded to push the meter even further.  None of that is documented in the spreadsheet but the video is still on-line.   

I do continue to use/abuse both meters and they continue to be my all time favorite handheld meter and I have looked at a lot of meters.  And that is the story of the BM869s.   

[Specmaster]

The fact that you made so abundantly clear that they were your favorite meters (as have Martin and a few others) was a big factor in my decision that I ought to have one. I don't have a need for VFD or temperature so the 867 was the logical selection for me seeing as Brymen put both the 869 and 867 at the top of their tree in terms of specification etc, not price, and that the 867 is essentially identical bar those 2 range swaps steered me towards the 867.

Having already gained a few Fluke 25's and 27's along the way I was leaning in that direction and the top of their range is at least 2 to 3 times the price of the Brymens. Also knowing how Brymen were willing to actively assist in your testing demonstrated that this was a company that was determined to make a better and more affordable product and there are plenty of more expensive and or more established brands who would not have been anywhere near as willing to cooperate. I'm perfectly sure that if you spotted any areas of weakness and or could make any suggestion on how to improve their robustness etc that they would take it on board and design the improvements into their products.

Speaking of products, you are actually producing a product of sorts and it is a very valuable source of information and I'm sure is very much appreciated by many forum members. Especially since almost all the dedicated electronics magazines have joined the dinosaurs, where else can the electronics engineer / hobbyist etc get totally unbiased opinions and information to assist them in making the best and most informed decisions on their meter purchases?

So yes, please continue to do what you do best, produce high quality videos pitting meters against meters, because what you also do is to keep manufacturers on their toes knowing that people like you exist is preventing them from resting on their laurels and relying on their name to carry them forwards by default.