I did not try this test in the off position, only in the Amps range that was being tested at that time.
Looks like I could borrow a supply what would get us to 150mA. The standard calls for 500VA but it may be enough to damage the meter. I think the first step is to trace this section out and see what these top Keysight engineers have done to cause such a high load.
You high voltage supply must be very weak, I had expected the meter to start smoking (There is nothing in the meter that can handle more than a few Watt for much time).
Such a difference in how we tested it.
Such a difference in how we tested it.
Doesn't it deserve to dropped off the roof like the others?
Such a difference in how we tested it.Doesn't it deserve to dropped off the roof like the others?
I would like to run the life test on the switch before doing anything else. The question now is do all the prongs on the detent spring crack like before?
I would like to run the life test on the switch before doing anything else. The question now is do all the prongs on the detent spring crack like before?
Of course...
I suspect the same but that's why we test them.
On the bright side: It might be a short test...
Not much to say beyond she's dead Joe.
Failing in the 5KV Transient Voltage test, means that this DMM is CAT IV for up 150V, but CAT III for 151-300V ?
The CAT documents only say that meters must protect the user. They don't say that the meter has to survive.
OTOH a meter that survives seems more desirable to me.
I think it may have been mentioned already, but perhaps you could ask Dave what he did with the U1282A he took down the canyon and if he would be willing to post you the board.
It would be nice to see the rotary selector test done with a fully operational meter to monitor it for any weird stuff during the cycle testing. With the types of testing I use these meters for I am probably more likely to wear out the selector switch well before being anywhere near a 5kV transient.
Well that's disappointing. I was hoping it would do better than that.
One thing that (too late now...) would have been interesting to know is if it was damaged in that hit when the meter shut off, or if the final hit after it turned off is what did the actual damage. What I wonder is if the fact that the DMM chipset would have (likely) been turned off for that last hit, thus taking the range resistors out of circuit, did the meter get damaged worse that it would have if the chipset was still powered? Again it should have survived, but that last hit was (in my opinion) a little unfair due to the fact that no-one would be trying to measure with a meter when it is so obviously in a non-functional state with the display off.
One thing that (too late now...) would have been interesting to know is if it was damaged in that hit when the meter shut off, or if the final hit after it turned off is what did the actual damage. What I wonder is if the fact that the DMM chipset would have (likely) been turned off for that last hit, thus taking the range resistors out of circuit, did the meter get damaged worse that it would have if the chipset was still powered? Again it should have survived, but that last hit was (in my opinion) a little unfair due to the fact that no-one would be trying to measure with a meter when it is so obviously in a non-functional state with the display off.
I would imagine there are many people who feel several of the tests I conduct are a little unfair!! After a few years, I'm sure I've heard it all. I do wonder at times if making these results public has had any impact on the companies who develop these meters or the people who buy their products.
I am looking for what level the meters are damaged. Just that simple. Because the transient generator is semi-automatic, I will typically walk away from it. If you were to watch where I have damaged other meters, I suspect you will note several cases where the meters are subjected to the full 5 cycles no mater the outcome of each individual transient. I dare say that in some cases I will even go so far as to finish up the remaining transients for a given level. If it's damaged, its damaged. If I roast it to a crisp or pop a SOT23, what is recorded is still the same, the meter failed at level X.
The CAT documents only say that meters must protect the user. They don't say that the meter has to survive.
OTOH a meter that survives seems more desirable to me.History once again repeats. Again, the thread is not about meeting a safety standard. Of course it does keep coming up. The question I have for you is if you finally took the time to speak with someone who may actually have the background needed to answer this? Or it is just the same old posting your feelings about a papers I doubt you have ever seen let alone read? Welcome to the internet.
I have no read the specs
I do remember Joe showing snippets of the standard and one thing that stands out in my memory is the statement that "the meter shall remain capable of indicating hazardous voltage".
This meter certainly was not capable of indicating hazardous voltage after it failed.
Quote from: joeqsmith link=topic=48998.msg4387375#msg4387375... Because the transient generator is semi-automatic, I will typically walk away from it. ...My curiosity not withstanding, running fully automated is the best way to ensure a consistent test across all meters!
...
Joe one thing that seems to hold true is the meters usually fail on the inputs other than the primary voltage input, usually ohms or (as in this case) mv inputs. How is the specification worded regards those inputs? I know it must take the full input voltage, but does it explicitly state that these secondary (ohms mv, etc) inputs must also be able to survive the same transient testing?
Again I know your testing isn't to test the CAT rating. I am just always amazed when NRTL tested meters fail your robustness tests at voltages lower than the CAT transient tests.
I wouldn't mind seeing someone procure an actual combo generator that also supports modes like burst.
I wouldn't mind seeing someone procure an actual combo generator that also supports modes like burst.
May I ask what a combo generator is? I've googled it and diesel generators showed up. How are diesel generators going to fit into these tests?
I wouldn't mind seeing someone procure an actual combo generator that also supports modes like burst.
May I ask what a combo generator is? I've googled it and diesel generators showed up. How are diesel generators going to fit into these tests?
I was referring to burst and surge transients from the safety standards that people are talking about. Have a look:
https://www.ametek-cts.com/products/productgroups/transient-generators-surge-and-burst/surge-generator
Is it similar to a pulse generator like this one:
...
Joe one thing that seems to hold true is the meters usually fail on the inputs other than the primary voltage input, usually ohms or (as in this case) mv inputs. How is the specification worded regards those inputs? I know it must take the full input voltage, but does it explicitly state that these secondary (ohms mv, etc) inputs must also be able to survive the same transient testing?
I'm pretty sure I went over this early on but you would need to read them to know for sure. I can tell you in Joe's world, they are going to be tested this way before I will ever consider them robust.Again I know your testing isn't to test the CAT rating. I am just always amazed when NRTL tested meters fail your robustness tests at voltages lower than the CAT transient tests.
I am amazed when meters are damaged by that stupid little grill starter or if they fail at levels lower than what damaged that $50 Amprobe AM510. The worse, IMO, are meters like this Keysight that carry a high price tag an are rendered non-repairable.