I don't think YouTube is the place for video sharing any more. It's too commercialized and too unfriendly to individual content creators. Maybe better to consider Vimeo or Daily Motion?
I don't think YouTube is the place for video sharing any more. It's too commercialized and too unfriendly to individual content creators. Maybe better to consider Vimeo or Daily Motion?
Only a fool would move to another platform from Youtube. If you do then watch your existing audience drop to close to zero, and have almost zero views through search and related videos, absolutely guaranteed.
Businesses may not use Basic or Plus accounts to host videos. If you want to upload commercial videos, you must use Vimeo PRO or Business. Commercial content includes:
Videos promoting or representing a for-profit business or brand
Videos containing any form of advertising
Videos hosted on behalf of a business (i.e., uploaded to Vimeo and embedded on your company’s website)
Product demos and tutorials
There are exceptions, however! If you are an independent production company, author, artist, or non-profit, you may use any account type (Basic, Plus, PRO, or Business) to showcase your work.
Regarding robustness, now that I am waiting for a rebranded an860b+ and this video is more important for me than before:
...
(I don't remember details so I am watching it again, although it will take a bit).
I wonder, does the larger PCB comparing to the small version make a difference? There's more space, but I don't know if it does provide better clearances.
Joe, excellent video. Interesting to see how the clamps and the thermistor are safe and sound while the meter is on fumes. Perhaps they are protecting the 3V battery?
Joe, excellent video. Interesting to see how the clamps and the thermistor are safe and sound while the meter is on fumes. Perhaps they are protecting the 3V battery?In the case of this meter along with the 8002 you are correct. These special designers put the PTC and clamp remain safe and sound behind the rotary switch. The switch has to take the full voltage which obviously it can't. Most of the meters I look, if they even have a clamp, it's located before the switch and limit the voltage to a few KV. Sometimes they design the switch to handle this voltage, sometimes we get a light show.
Joe, excellent video. Interesting to see how the clamps and the thermistor are safe and sound while the meter is on fumes. Perhaps they are protecting the 3V battery?In the case of this meter along with the 8002 you are correct. These special designers put the PTC and clamp remain safe and sound behind the rotary switch. The switch has to take the full voltage which obviously it can't. Most of the meters I look, if they even have a clamp, it's located before the switch and limit the voltage to a few KV. Sometimes they design the switch to handle this voltage, sometimes we get a light show.Oh, I see... It may be the same special designer that did the work on a meter that had the 10A fuse on the V input (I can't recall the model/brand).
I do plan to run the thermal testing on these two meters (8002/8) for those of you who asked.
I do plan to run the thermal testing on these two meters (8002/8) for those of you who asked.
And we have no objection to the 80 deg C span ! (as Dave had)
But, I would be interested in how it is with the alleged thermocouples whose influence prevails allegedly (as Dave mentioned) - could possibly someone (maybe even from Metrology section?) explain that in depth and confirm or disprove Joe's results?
Still, there is data of UT181a which does not seem to be affected by that alleged significant thermocouples influence. Could that influence be mittigated by suitable(proper) material of it's input posts in relation to the connecting conductors?
All that could be prevented (IMHO) if Joe had performed these termal testing with input posts shorted, so no different temperature and voltage potentials on the leads.
I would suggest when you comment, consider that meters could range from the free harbor freight to the overprized Gossen. Some meters may not even read into the mV let alone uVs. Test times are a premium. You may not want to invest a week looking at the drift of a free meter.
I would suggest when you comment, consider that meters could range from the free harbor freight to the overprized Gossen. Some meters may not even read into the mV let alone uVs. Test times are a premium. You may not want to invest a week looking at the drift of a free meter.
BM235 test went out well, so test was at that time good?
121GW test went out bad, so test is suddenly bad?
I hope I dont get ban for it...
....
121GW test went out bad, so test is suddenly bad?
I hope I dont get ban for it...
It is somewhat suspect to me that meters that showed no difference at 1 V suddenly showed large changes at 1 mV.
As for why I did not bring this up before, because I do not regularly watch Joe's videos. I am not that interested in handheld DMMs. I only hang around for the occasional discussion of testing methods .
I'm a little lost on what data are you referring to. Which meters?
However, we really want both gain and offset. For gain pick a level that would not OR on any of the meters I have in their mV range. I see no reason to run them through all of the attenuators to see how each resistor effects the gain. I also can't see changing the range switch during the test. Drop the temps to 0-40 to try and assume the drift is somewhat linear. Stay with the two temperatures, so four data points total. Use the same set of cables for all the meters on both leads, keeping everything symmetrical to minimize these errors. We are not looking for nV errors anyway. For presenting the data, I would just keep the raw data. Ignoring the free HF meter, I could use 250mV as a test point for gain. I would stay with the hour dwell times after the chamber reached the set point.
The 121GW is a prototype unit and Dave said his intent was to send one to Joe for him to see how much it took to blow up.
....
I did some "temperature measurements" myself (unpublicable - in the car in the sun ), and it seemed to me that (IMHO) meters have some internal (software-firmware) compensation for common temperature range (up to about 45 deg C), because meters are very stable in that range.
I consider that as "cheating".
....
P.S. LCD displays of the meters do not like hot+sun - do not ask how I know! Fortunately it is almost reversible.
Canadian winters running a DMM even at -20°C the test leads get very hard and brittle, the LCD display fluid starts to freeze up, alkaline batteries crap out too.
I think 0°C is the lowest any DMM is good for.
I don't get why the test of Dave's meter is causing such a fuss.
All Joe did was shove some meters in a temperature chamber same as he did with the UT-61E and some others before.
He has always said that Dave's meter is NOT the final version.
Whilst the huge temperature range that Joe used in the tests isn't really the best way to assess the temp co of the meters
it does show how they survive the experience.
3DB
The only data I could quickly find on your channel: the data shown here. Sorry if this is outdated data, I could not find it in your spreadsheet or in another easily searchable video. Now that I look at it again, actually none of the meters that perform not very well with the 1 mV tested are in your 1 V data set, so my statement about them performing much worse is not completely true. I guess the most striking difference is the BM869S which performs pretty well in the 1 V tests but mediocre in the 1 mV test.
I agree with not changing the range switch during the test. I am curious why the mV range. As you say, the divider should not have much of an effect either way. I guess there could be differences in tempco between the two legs of the divider, but that does not really seems worth worrying about and is not feasible testing.
So as far as the rest of the front-end and the ADC are concerned, there is pretty much no difference between shorted inputs at the mV range or the 100 V range. Why not pick a range that is less error prone, like the range that includes 1 V? I would also guess that for most users the lowest and highest ranges are the least used, so picking a middle range makes sense. Are you deliberately testing for thermoelectric voltages inside the meters?
I guess if you wanted spectacular videos you would test at 1000 V and see how they deal with condensation .
The 121GW is a prototype unit and Dave said his intent was to send one to Joe for him to see how much it took to blow up.It wasn't even for that, it was never meant to be a formal test, it was just for fun because everyone was asking for it, look at the poll in this thread! Also Joe had done one or more videos publicly asking for me to send one, so I (foolishly?) sent one before it was finished.
I'm just saying that these numbers do NOT have real-world practical meaning, as some viewers seem to think.
I assure you, Joe knows that very well, too.. But he is allowed to have a bit of fun in his own private time, and that is what he does.
I just think it's a shame that he seems to have access to real thermal chamber, and is more than qualified to make real, useful thermal characterization for equipment.
So he could do it that way and finally we would be able to see some numbers manufacturers are hiding like snake is hiding legs...
But of course, it is a serious, time consuming project and I understand if he just don't have time to do it. And that is also fine with me..