Handheld meter robustness testing

[Fungus]

I would say YOU are back to ...  Don't wrap every one else into your safety chatter.   

Huh? Somebody else mentioned "61010" a couple of posts up.

I believe you have access to a copy so maybe you could make a definitive statement on the matter. End speculation.

[NoMoreMagicSmoke]

Take a look at the specs though. This meter is literally an order of magnitude less accurate than any other 60k count meters. What good does that extra digit do if it's not accurate??? To me, it's close enough in price to the BM786 or 789 that if I want a 60k meter I would still prefer one of them. If I wanted cheap I would get the 61E which has better accuracy than this meter.

I am VERY confused by that teardown pic and the specs. That looks like a HY3131 chip, which is definitely capable (with the correct other hardware of course) of much better accuracy than this meter.

Interesting. I didn't really look into the specs, I just saw a new 60K meter from Uni-T at an attractive price point. I just assumed it would be at least as accurate as a 61E+ (which I also happen to have). I don't understand why they wouldn't take a fairly proven (if not perfect) design like the 61E+ and add the precision to it for $25 more.

That's what I don't understand either. This meter is using similar hardware as the BM786 so should be possible to have similar specs, but somehow has worse specs than their cheaper 61E+. What did they do so wrong??? Or did someone mess up the data sheets and manuals???

[Fungus]

Interesting. I didn't really look into the specs, I just saw a new 60K meter from Uni-T at an attractive price point. I just assumed it would be at least as accurate as a 61E+ (which I also happen to have). I don't understand why they wouldn't take a fairly proven (if not perfect) design like the 61E+ and add the precision to it for $25 more.

Their web page claims "high precision", not high accuracy.

https://meters.uni-trend.com/product/ut117c/

[floobydust]

It's got "electrician" features like the clamp on current probe with crappy 0.1A resolution and only the one big current shunt as well.

[Fungus]

It's got "electrician" features

Yep. No mA range.

TLDR; Another confusing meter from Uni-T.

[Veteran68]

Interesting. I didn't really look into the specs, I just saw a new 60K meter from Uni-T at an attractive price point. I just assumed it would be at least as accurate as a 61E+ (which I also happen to have). I don't understand why they wouldn't take a fairly proven (if not perfect) design like the 61E+ and add the precision to it for $25 more.

Their web page claims "high precision", not high accuracy.

https://meters.uni-trend.com/product/ut117c/

Right. My point was the cheaper 61E+ has ±(0.05%＋5) accuracy at 22K counts, so for ~$25 more in selling price couldn't they take the same accuracy and just add the additional precision? That was my assumption when I first saw the meter the other day, but didn't delve into the specs. The fact they're falling back to ±(0.3%+10) seems a bit absurd. I'd rather have 22K counts at the much higher accuracy.

EDIT: Actually the 61E+ is now selling for $82 on AliExpress, virtually same as this meter. I was thinking the 61E+ was quite a bit cheaper. So I guess the upshot between these meters is you can have precision or accuracy for the same price, just not both.

[Fungus]

EDIT: Actually the 61E+ is now selling for $82 on AliExpress, virtually same as this meter. I was thinking the 61E+ was quite a bit cheaper. So I guess the upshot between these meters is you can have precision or accuracy for the same price, just not both.

My question is why would you ever buy a Uni-T? You can get the 61E's accuracy in a Zoyi for much less money (the ZT-219/Aneng 870) and you can get a genuine CAT III meter from Brymen with input jack alert, etc., for the price of this meter.

The only interesting thing I see in the Uni-T lineup is a data logging meter for about $80 (the 61E). I don't think any other brand can match that.

(nb. Zoyi have some Bluetooth meters but I don't know if the protocol is known/hacked)

I know the UT61E has an army of fans though so that's just me.

[floobydust]

Any multimeter that gets killed by a BBQ lighter, such a waste. ESD hits are not that different.

The UT117C has Bluetooth. No idea what UNI-T Smart Measure app is like or what it can do. I'm not holding my breath.

[joeqsmith]

I would say YOU are back to ...  Don't wrap every one else into your safety chatter.   

Huh? Somebody else mentioned "61010" a couple of posts up.

I believe you have access to a copy so maybe you could make a definitive statement on the matter. End speculation.

Like, I don't care about safety an my testing has nothing to do with it.  I've made that statement many times over the years.  Never sinks in with certain people. 

[joeqsmith]

I don't understand why they wouldn't take a fairly proven (if not perfect) design like the 61E+ and add the precision to it for $25 more.

Your idea of a proven and perfect design certainly differs from my own.   I like that 200MHz frequency counter function it has.   

[Fungus]

Huh? Somebody else mentioned "61010" a couple of posts up.

I believe you have access to a copy so maybe you could make a definitive statement on the matter. End speculation.

Like, I don't care about safety an my testing has nothing to do with it.  I've made that statement many times over the years.  Never sinks in with certain people.

I never said you did.

The standard is written around "safety" so that's the word I'm forced to use. Please stop trying to be obtuse.

[Veteran68]

EDIT: Actually the 61E+ is now selling for $82 on AliExpress, virtually same as this meter. I was thinking the 61E+ was quite a bit cheaper. So I guess the upshot between these meters is you can have precision or accuracy for the same price, just not both.

My question is why would you ever buy a Uni-T? You can get the 61E's accuracy in a Zoyi for much less money (the ZT-219/Aneng 870) and you can get a genuine CAT III meter from Brymen with input jack alert, etc., for the price of this meter.

The only interesting thing I see in the Uni-T lineup is a data logging meter for about $80 (the 61E). I don't think any other brand can match that.

(nb. Zoyi have some Bluetooth meters but I don't know if the protocol is known/hacked)

I know the UT61E has an army of fans though so that's just me.

I'm not a Uni-T fan by any means, but I have a thing for buying meters that interest me. Call it a compulsion, an addiction, whatever, but I've been accumulating handheld DMMs for 40 years. I hadn't counted recently but just did a quick inventory of those at hand, and I stopped counting at 22.

I have a few different Uni-T products (AWG, thermal camera), but the only Uni-T DMM I own is a 61E+, and really the only reason I bought it was its popularity, not its specs (although it certainly isn't bad for bench use). I know "serious" electronics folks can be a bit snobbish about our equipment, but you can't deny Uni-T's popularity and market share among hobbyists -- particularly the 61 series. Sure, I have several much better meters, but that's irrelevant to its suitability and value for a hobbyist's bench.

Kerry Wong posted this video:



about his experience using the 61E+ as his primary meter for one year, saying at 0:36 (and I quote) "I really like this meter, and it's definitely a meter I will use on a daily basis." He also did this video:



comparing the AN870 and the 61E+, and it was really no comparison. He concluded with "Personally, I'd pay the premium for the more expensive Uni-T UT61E+ if I had to choose one or the other." Yes, the AN870 has temperature and a lower price, so of those are driving a buyer's motivations, then it's a no-brainer at ~$30. But the 61E+ beats it in virtually every other category.

BTW I also have an AN870, which is certainly a decent meter for the money, but as soon as you handle it you recognize it's very cheaply made. The 61E+ has a much higher fit & finish. In fact I have several Anengs and Zoyi/Zotecs, again for the price they're interesting and useful budget meters. I also have Flukes and Brymens, the latter being my favorite brand of handhelds (in fact just ordered a BM869s this week). But I'm interested in meters that interest me, regardless of price point. If this new 117C actually had 61E+ accuracy but with 60K counts for essentially the same price, I'd probably feel compelled to get one. Now I that I realize it really took a step backward on specs compared to the 61E+, especially now that the 61E+ is essentially the same price, it's less interesting and I doubt I'll pick one up. But you never know, I do have this DMM monkey on my back, after all.

I don't understand why they wouldn't take a fairly proven (if not perfect) design like the 61E+ and add the precision to it for $25 more.

Your idea of a proven and perfect design certainly differs from my own.   I like that 200MHz frequency counter function it has.   

Oh let me be clear: I do NOT think it's perfect, far from it. Hence my saying "if not perfect." And by "fairly proven" I refer simply to it's aforementioned popularity among hobbyists -- it has definitely proven itself a popular and capable meter for it's price point with that demographic. I wasn't implying that it's robustness (to use your favorite term) or suitability for professional electrician use is proven at all. Again, far from it.

EDIT: reformatted since the inline YT links expanded into previews that screwed up the formatting...

[joeqsmith]

Huh? Somebody else mentioned "61010" a couple of posts up.

I believe you have access to a copy so maybe you could make a definitive statement on the matter. End speculation.

Like, I don't care about safety an my testing has nothing to do with it.  I've made that statement many times over the years.  Never sinks in with certain people.

I never said you did.

The standard is written around "safety" so that's the word I'm forced to use. Please stop trying to be obtuse.

As I have stated many times, that standard has nothing to do with my testing outside of that I based my transient on their open circuit voltage waveform.  Talking about safety from the context of this thread shows a lack of understanding.

That said, I had some RC person write me once how I was saving lives with all this testing.  I can imagine that electrical safety is on the minds of all the people playing with their RC toys.   Takes all kinds.

[joeqsmith]

And by "fairly proven" I refer simply to it's aforementioned popularity among hobbyists -- it has definitely proven itself a popular and capable meter for it's price point with that demographic.

Right, like the free Harbor Freight meters.  May be the most popular meter out there and tough to beat that price point. 

[Veteran68]

And by "fairly proven" I refer simply to it's aforementioned popularity among hobbyists -- it has definitely proven itself a popular and capable meter for it's price point with that demographic.

Right, like the free Harbor Freight meters.  May be the most popular meter out there and tough to beat that price point.

Touche, but I pointed out a specific demographic that I'm pretty sure are not seeking out free HF DT830 meters for use in their hobby. I would venture to speculate that the vast majority of HF meters (or any similar generic DT830 meter) are not popular with many electronics hobbyists. More likely just general home DIYers that picked one up because it was free and it works for them (maybe) to test a battery or an outlet or a light bulb socket once or twice a year. I seriously doubt you'd find many on an electronics bench like you would find the 61E+ and its ilk that cost at least an order of magnitude more than the $6 price of the HF meter (they don't give them away any more).

I had a few of those as well, back when they were still giving them away. Not because I liked them, but even they had a purpose. I had one in my truck console for years, probably still there. Don't know where the rest of them went, I think I gave some away.

[Fungus]

He also did this video:



comparing the AN870 and the 61E+, and it was really no comparison.

Amazing how two people can watch the same video and see something completely different. If you look at the numbers on screen instead of listening to what he says it just doesn't match up. The only thing the Uni-T really won on was autorange speed (for resistance - screen updates were generally faster) and better leads.

"Better leads" are cheap, Aneng sells silicone/gold leads for a few bucks.

The "microvolt" test was really funny. He pointed out that the The Uni-T was flickering between 0 and 10 uV "when the input reached 5uV" but it was actually doing that the entire time, even with 0uV input.

When he got to 10uV it started flickering between 0uV and 20uV while he tells us it's "clearly more accurate" than the Aneng, which wasn't doing that. 

The Aneng was clearly better at TRMS measurement and has better specs in general.

He concluded with "Personally, I'd pay the premium for the more expensive Uni-T UT61E+ if I had to choose one or the other."

His main reasoning was "because Uni-T is a well known brand in making quality test equipment, so I trust the specifications...", dispite having just demonstrated that the Aneng was well in spec.

PS: The Uni-T does have a bar graph, I'll give it that. I can't forgive it for wasting an entire selector position on "hFE" though.

[Fungus]

BTW I also have an AN870, which is certainly a decent meter for the money, but as soon as you handle it you recognize it's very cheaply made.

I'm more of a fan of the AN860B+. It certainly feels more solid than the AN870 and the extra counts/accuracy of the AN870 doesn't really make much difference for hobby use..

The AN860B+ is disappearing from stores, being replaced by the AN870 so I bought a second one a few months ago before there's none left. I have to say it doesn't feel quite as solid as my old AN860B+. It's just a bit lighter in the hand somehow. Maybe I should weigh them both.

[tomud]

BTW I also have an AN870, which is certainly a decent meter for the money, but as soon as you handle it you recognize it's very cheaply made.

I'm more of a fan of the AN860B+.

I have better gear It's called Lavo 21 

With a simple probe, it measures RF beautifully, not some slow digital bargraph  And it's pretty accurate for its age (1979 r) 

[Fungus]

As I have stated many times, that standard has nothing to do with my testing

Yes, we've heard you.

Talking about safety from the context of this thread shows a lack of understanding.

The question isn't about safety. The question is whether or not the meter is supposed to survive it's rated transient without damage.

My belief is that the standard is ambiguous on this point but I don't have a copy the standard because it's expensive and not much use to me.

It seems logical to ask somebody who does have access to the standard if they could clarify things (or simply confirm that yes, it's ambiguous). 

The only reason I used the word "safety" in your robustness thread is that because in my opinion a meter with exploding PTCs isn't a safe meter. You can still be injured even if no shrapnel or sparks make it out of the case.

If the standard allows exploding PTCs then I don't agree with the standard.

FWIW I asked the AI and got this answer:

[bdunham7]

FWIW I asked the AI and got this answer:

Well that should settle it then!

Standards may have been rewritten or be different in certain regions (apparently CAT I is no longer a thing, at least in the EU) so I have no idea what the current answer might be.  However, I do remember a statement about it that I think either came from Fluke or was quoted by them that pretty clearly outlined that the meter needed to be able to at least indicate the presence of hazardous voltage at the conclusion of the test.  That doesn't imply no damage whatsoever, and there was some further discussion about how much error would be acceptable in such a reading.  If IIRC (which is a big if) I think their conclusion was that a 10% error was acceptable.  This was a fairly technical discussion, not an advertisement.

It's pretty hard to design something to take a big hit with that precise of a failure, so I'd presume (while admittedly not actually knowing) that the resulting design goal would typically be to get through the test with no damage at all.  Now if you have two different devices, one with a CAT III/1000V - CAT IV/600V rating designed to pass those tests without any damage and another with a CAT IV/1000V rating but only designed to pass that test without anything exploding through the case, it isn't easy to compare them directly.

[rsjsouza]

Talking about safety from the context of this thread shows a lack of understanding.

The question isn't about safety. The question is whether or not the meter is supposed to survive it's rated transient without damage.

My belief is that the standard is ambiguous on this point but I don't have a copy the standard because it's expensive and not much use to me.

It seems logical to ask somebody who does have access to the standard if they could clarify things (or simply confirm that yes, it's ambiguous). 

I had momentary access to a few versions of the 61010 and it is quite ambiguous - I recall Joe had the same impression. I had commented before in this thread that IME such standards are subject to pressure from various players in the industry and such specific point might have well been kept somewhat ambiguous on purpose, clearing out the market for varying degrees of performance under transients.

One of the reasons that IMO is a strong indicator of the 61010 ambiguity is the line of Hypertough meters sold at the large Walmart stores in the US. Their M830B clone (manufactured by All-Sun) is way better than the average crap meters but I don't think it would qualify. However, Intertek mark is stamped left and right across its packaging and enclosure - no way Walmart would open themselves to a class action suit in case people started being electrocuted by one of their products.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Hyper-Tough-Digital-Multimeter-TD35235J-New-4-25-in-Assembled-Product-Width/815000129?athbdg=L1600&from=/search

As usual, I did a review for my channel. My feelings are mixed - despite it is of a lesser quality than the A/B brand meters, it is built to a much higher quality than the M830B clones, which a great deal of people that can understand Portuguese uses them in extremely dangerous scenarios. Disclaimers galore but I would be happy if people used this particular one instead of the über crap stuff you find in Brasil. Hey, it withstood 280V_AC applied to all its ranges - except battery tester, hfe and A/mA.

[Fungus]

One of the reasons that IMO is a strong indicator of the 61010 ambiguity is the line of Hypertough meters sold at the large Walmart stores in the US. Their M830B clone (manufactured by All-Sun) is way better than the average crap meters but I don't think it would qualify.

  That meter reminds me of my "Big Clive" meter, which I enjoy using - it's simple, it takes up almost no space, and it stays on all day long without complaint.

The case is really boring though. You'd think they'd make it stand out from the crappy DT830a so you can easily tell them apart. eg. The Big Clive has a Fluke-like rubber boot.

it withstood 280V_AC applied to all its ranges - except battery tester, hfe and A/mA.

The Big Clive claims 500V on most ranges in the manual but I haven't tested it.

(I don't see hFE on yours in your video...)

As usual, I did a review for my channel. My feelings are mixed - despite it is of a lesser quality than the A/B brand meters, it is built to a much higher quality than the M830B clones, which a great deal of people that can understand Portuguese uses them in extremely dangerous scenarios. Disclaimers galore but I would be happy if people used this particular one instead of the über crap stuff you find in Brasil.

Well... Brasil is a country full of suicide showers. People have a higher immunity to electricity there. 

FWIW I feel the same: If people are going to use a $4 meter to measure mains then a Big Clive or Hypertough is far superior to a Chinese race-to-the-bottom DT830.

[joeqsmith]

Talking about safety from the context of this thread shows a lack of understanding.

The question isn't about safety. The question is whether or not the meter is supposed to survive it's rated transient without damage.

My belief is that the standard is ambiguous on this point but I don't have a copy the standard because it's expensive and not much use to me.

It seems logical to ask somebody who does have access to the standard if they could clarify things (or simply confirm that yes, it's ambiguous). 

I had momentary access to a few versions of the 61010 and it is quite ambiguous - I recall Joe had the same impression. I had commented before in this thread that IME such standards are subject to pressure from various players in the industry and such specific point might have well been kept somewhat ambiguous on purpose, clearing out the market for varying degrees of performance under transients.

One of the reasons that IMO is a strong indicator of the 61010 ambiguity is the line of Hypertough meters sold at the large Walmart stores in the US. Their M830B clone (manufactured by All-Sun) is way better than the average crap meters but I don't think it would qualify. However, Intertek mark is stamped left and right across its packaging and enclosure - no way Walmart would open themselves to a class action suit in case people started being electrocuted by one of their products.

I've posted sections of the standards and have written how I have contacted some of the big companies to get their take.   Nothing there has changed.  From the posts, it doesn't seem anyone else has done any further research on it.     

I've mentioned before that I think Intertek has become a bloated, ineffective monopoly.   Worse, it seems much of the cert is now rubber stamping for a price.  I think it's more about trying to control trade than safety.   My thoughts on that have not changed and this extends far beyond handheld multimeters. 

[rsjsouza]

One of the reasons that IMO is a strong indicator of the 61010 ambiguity is the line of Hypertough meters sold at the large Walmart stores in the US. Their M830B clone (manufactured by All-Sun) is way better than the average crap meters but I don't think it would qualify.

  That meter reminds me of my "Big Clive" meter, which I enjoy using - it's simple, it takes up almost no space, and it stays on all day long without complaint.

The case is really boring though. You'd think they'd make it stand out from the crappy DT830a so you can easily tell them apart. eg. The Big Clive has a Fluke-like rubber boot.

I wasn't sure what you meant by this meter but I found your other thread.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/trashy-meters-redux/

Quite interesting indeed, which Clive's meter says CAT I and I think it is more adequate to its physical abilities. The All-Sun says CAT III 300V, which it claims but I am very suspicious, having the GS mark or not.

it withstood 280V_AC applied to all its ranges - except battery tester, hfe and A/mA.

The Big Clive claims 500V on most ranges in the manual but I haven't tested it.

(I don't see hFE on yours in your video...)

My measurement was quite close to the meter's maximum claim of 300V, but I should pull my HiPot tester and see if I can get it to display more (up to 2kV?).

Well... Brasil is a country full of suicide showers. People have a higher immunity to electricity there. 

Our ability to withstand 220V across our body is legendary.
(i did this for 23 years daily, then I moved to a city of just 127V - amateurs!)

[rsjsouza]

I've mentioned before that I think Intertek has become a bloated, ineffective monopoly.   Worse, it seems much of the cert is now rubber stamping for a price.  I think it's more about trying to control trade than safety.   My thoughts on that have not changed and this extends far beyond handheld multimeters.

If you think Intertek is like that, there is a chance UL follows suit. I worked with them and, despite they were very professional and completed the work to its extent, there was a perceptible "checkbox-like" attitude.

In other words, it smelled like a CYA operstion more than a work with pride in its technical merits. Oh well...