-
None of that explains why Fluke hasn't ever produced the "spectacular" meter instead of carefully tiptoeing around the 87V so as not to disturb it.
How many Fluke meters do you own? 3 or so as I recall? That's a lot for such a vocal Fluke critic. Just come out of the closet already and admit you lust after the yellow holster. Then buy yourself a 287.
-
BTW I easily changed the SSD in the MBP a number of years ago.....Also have Windows 10 running in bootcamp when needed, since some SW won't run on the Mac OS.
Yes, the Macs from 2008 and a few years onward were basically just configurable PCs with a BIOS that allowed OSX to be installed. And then you needed Windows anyway. But that show is over with current Mac products--you won't be upgrading, repairing, or running Windows on, the latest M1 wundergizmos. So if they work for you--great. If not, then....they don't work. -
None of that explains why Fluke hasn't ever produced the "spectacular" meter instead of carefully tiptoeing around the 87V so as not to disturb it.
There's clearly no sense in arguing with you, you've got your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA LA LA!!!" the whole time people are explaining exactly why Fluke doesn't screw with a successful formula. It's a time-proven design with a reputation, and that reputation is priceless. You've made it very clear that you think you know more about running a business than they do, so why don't you go design a "spectacular" meter and show them all how it's done by taking the market by storm. Let us know how you plan to pull decades of reputation out of nowhere and good luck with your venture. In the meantime I think I'll just add you to my ignore list since you are seeming more and more like a clueless troll who just wants to argue. -
None of that explains why Fluke hasn't ever produced the "spectacular" meter instead of carefully tiptoeing around the 87V so as not to disturb it.
Um, isn't that what the Fluke 289 (or 287) is supposed to be?
-
None of that explains why Fluke hasn't ever produced the "spectacular" meter instead of carefully tiptoeing around the 87V so as not to disturb it.
Um, isn't that what the Fluke 289 is supposed to be?
If it is then Fluke failed dismally.There's clearly no sense in arguing with you, you've got your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA LA LA!!!" the whole time people are explaining exactly why Fluke doesn't screw with a successful formula. It's a time-proven design with a reputation, and that reputation is priceless. You've made it very clear that you think you know more about running a business than they do, so why don't you go design a "spectacular" meter and show them all how it's done by taking the market by storm.
What would I do to the 87V to "spectacularize" it without even changing The Magic Formula?
Off the top of my head:
* Faster autoranging. Autoranging can never be fast enough. Where's the "Damn, that's fast!" factor? I'm sure Fluke could sell a whole load of upgrades just by doing that.
* Bigger capacitance range. Why should I have to grab a $25 Aneng meter to measure more than 10mF? (nb. The 87IV went to 50mF, the 87V was a step backwards)
* Bigger resistance range (the 87IV went to 500MOhm, why go back to 50 in the 87V?)
* Wider TRMS bandwidth - make it useful for audio! (the 87IV went to 100kHz...)
* Continuity test with backlight. This is actually a critical safety feature for working in noisy environments where you can't hear th ebeeper. I'm told Fluke is all "safety first" but they don't even do this simple thing. Again: The 87IV had a "wobbly" beeper for this reason so Fluke knows about it.
* Current socket jack-alert should flash the backlight. For the same safety reasons.
* Some way to set DC current mode by default. I get that big corporations don't want every meter to have a different setting depending on who used the meter last but it should be possible even if I have to open it up and join two PCB pads with a blob of solder. My meter, my choice!
* Better display - a freebie DT830B has way better contrast than a Fluke. I'm told this is because there's less segments and less multiplexing, so... reduce the 87V's multiplexing! Get it blacker than black.
* Gold plated test leads as standard (FFS, Fluke!)
* How about a nice workbench stand that powers the meter via an inductive charger? When you put the meter in the stand it disables the auto-power off, increases the CPU speed and switches to 20,000 count mode. That way you can use it all day on the bench at max performance and without it falling over when you press the buttons. I'm sure they'd sell a ton of those.
* Backlit buttons and symbols around the selector switch so you can use it in the dark (a small light pipe in the end of the selector switch could catch the light from the symbols and make the pointer visible). This would be a wow feature and a safety feature.
* 9999 counts instead of 6000 (OK, that might change manuals/procedure but I have a hard time believing anybody would be fatally confused by it)
* 0.01% accuracyI think I'll just add you to my ignore list since you are seeming more and more like a clueless troll who just wants to argue.
Nope.
It's just that find it very, very hard to believe that I'm the only person in the world who doesn't see divine perfection in the 87V or that several improvements are possible.
Maybe I'm the only one here with any imagination.
-
How many Fluke meters do you own? 3 or so as I recall?
Five! (101, 187, 27FM, 37, 8060A)
Brymens? Only one!
-
One other thing:
Joe discovered areas where the 87V shows a wrong reading on screen. They should probably address that, too, in a meter that I'm constantly being told is all "safety first!"
Here's one showing about 50 volts less that it ought to be showing:
As usual, the 87IV shows these values correctly.
Joe's post is here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hear-kitty-kitty-kitty-nope-not-that-kind-of-cat/msg3630224/#msg3630224
He did a more in depth look at this issue but I don't remember which video it was in...
-
Um, isn't that what the Fluke 289 is supposed to be?
If it is then Fluke failed dismally.
How so? What capabilities is the 287/289 missing that causes it to "fail dismally" at being a "spectacular" meter?
-
It's just that find it very, very hard to believe that I'm the only person in the world who doesn't see divine perfection in the 87V or that several improvements are possible.
Nobody sees divine perfection in the 87V, just a dependable known quantity that is still in demand. The 87IV was a big advancement, but it didn't go over well as as replacement, so they retreated, New Coke style. I don't know why they later dropped the 187/189 altogether. Most of your ideas would either be disliked or go unused by 99% of 87V users, although I must say the flashing backlight is actually a very good idea.QuoteFive! (101, 187, 27FM, 37, 8060A)
That's more than me in handhelds... -
Joe discovered areas where the 87V shows a wrong reading on screen. They should probably address that, too, in a meter that I'm constantly being told is all "safety first!"
Well why don't you reveal what was actually going on there. I suppose the autoranging could work differently, but then it might not be optimized for stability in noisy environments. However, this is really quite a different issue than what it appears to be. I don't think it needs addressing. Neither meter is actually giving you a valid number relevant to 'safety', but at least the Fluke is displaying the lightning bolt. -
The detachable screen makes a lot more sense for a professional setting. Maybe you don't quite grasp the sort of environments this stuff gets used in, a smartphone is not nearly rugged enough, the meters are designed to survive being dropped off of ladders onto concrete, dropped into manufacturing machines, exposed to vibration, oil and grease, and other rough treatment.
Maybe you didn't grasp that smartphones are only one possible way to receive Bluetooth. I'm sure Fluke will be happy to sell you a rugged yellow Bluetooth receiver for when you're away from the workbench.
-
The 87IV was a big advancement, but it didn't go over well as as replacement, so they retreated, New Coke style.
Yes but CocaCola came back later with Coke Zero and it's been a massive success.
-
How so? What capabilities is the 287/289 missing that causes it to "fail dismally" at being a "spectacular" meter?
It's not so much the capabilities as the overly complex user interface (going into a submenu to select "rel" mode instead of just pushing a button with a triangle on it) , the sluggish/ghosty display, the startup time, the short battery life.
It seems to be designed as a bench meter which is left on all day, so maybe startup time isn't critical but the battery life is. The shape is also all wrong for bench use - it's way too tall and wobbly to use on the stand.
TLDR: it just doesn't add up to me. It's not a good grab-and-measure meter, it's not as good as a dedicated bench meter.
Our Joe compared one with a much cheaper Uni-T and it seemed to come off much worse in terms of display/usability:
Obviously the Unit-T died with the grill starter but it's a Uni-T.
-
One other thing:
Joe discovered areas where the 87V shows a wrong reading on screen. They should probably address that, too, in a meter that I'm constantly being told is all "safety first!"
Here's one showing about 50 volts less that it ought to be showing:
As usual, the 87IV shows these values correctly.
He did a more in depth look at this issue but I don't remember which video it was in...
Is this video at 20:00, but I didn't understand what exactly caused the problem. Seems the auto-range has a glitch, but what signal is that, is AC+DC, has voltage variation? How can I replicate it? Thanks.
https://youtu.be/ciwBB5kYvJM?t=1200 -
I'm with Fungus,
I have a 289 and it is my least favorite meter to use.
This morning I had to monitor a couple of voltages so I reached for my BM896s and my Fluke 175 instead.
My favorite meter in terms of comfortable UI is definitely my 6.5 digit bench keysight. The only downside is the boot time. If that was 5 seconds, it would be perfect. -
The detachable screen makes a lot more sense for a professional setting. Maybe you don't quite grasp the sort of environments this stuff gets used in, a smartphone is not nearly rugged enough, the meters are designed to survive being dropped off of ladders onto concrete, dropped into manufacturing machines, exposed to vibration, oil and grease, and other rough treatment.
Maybe you didn't grasp that smartphones are only one possible way to receive Bluetooth. I'm sure Fluke will be happy to sell you a rugged yellow Bluetooth receiver for when you're away from the workbench.
Kind of like how Keysight does:
It’s great. I can set up my meters to instrument something in whatever environment it’s in and then observe from a comfortable seat. It’s saved me a lot of contortionist acts watching meters without tying my phone up in the process. -
Is this video at 20:00, but I didn't understand what exactly caused the problem. Seems the auto-range has a glitch, but what signal is that, is AC+DC, has voltage variation? How can I replicate it? Thanks.
He's essentially testing normal-mode rejection with about 500VAC and an adjustable DC bias. In order for a meter to reject an AC signal larger than the DC signal, it needs to be in a range where the AC peaks don't exceed the range by too much, otherwise it clips and doesn't evenly reject the AC signal. Some meter's autoranging will detect the AC peaks and range up, some won't--and a lot depends on the exact ranges and stimuli applied. In this case the 87V was not in 20,000 count mode, which means it was in the 60V range and the AC would have been grossly overloading the input. I'm not sure why 6K mode was used nor do I know if it would matter. -
I have a 289 and it is my least favorite meter to use.
Oh I agree--it's a pain in the ass. Until you need it. And then you need it. And you may not know that you need it until things just aren't working out and you realize that you needed it.
-
How so? What capabilities is the 287/289 missing that causes it to "fail dismally" at being a "spectacular" meter?
It's not so much the capabilities as the overly complex user interface (going into a submenu to select "rel" mode instead of just pushing a button with a triangle on it)
There's a limited amount of real estate for buttons and things. Which button would you have replaced with "rel" mode?Quote, the sluggish/ghosty display,
Were faster displays that use the same amount of energy or less available at the time of the 289's design (introduced in 2008, so likely around 2006 or so)? Once Fluke introduces a model, it isn't likely to change it except to fix actual faults in it, precisely because of the procurement stability characteristic that makes Fluke meters desirable to a lot of buyers.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these meters go through various certification programs in order to be salable to certain buyers (such as government contractors). If that's the case, then you do not screw with anything in the design or BOM after that, because if you do then you have to go back through certification all over again.
You wanna know why private airplanes are so expensive? It's because of the certification requirements they have to pass, imposed by the FAA. For meters, those requirements would be imposed as a condition of purchase by government and some commercial entities, while the FAA imposes them as a condition of sale to the general public. But the principle is the same, and the effect on cost and change flexibility is also the same.
Why do you think Fluke introduced a new model variant of the 87, instead of simply changing up the existing variant, and why do you think it took Fluke so long in between each iteration to do it? Businesses don't make decisions like this just for the fun of it, you know. They're carefully considered, because screwing them up can cost you the company.Quotethe startup time, the short battery life.
All a function of the technology used, which is 2006 or so technology.
Fluke could introduce a new meter with the characteristics you want, but it would need a compelling reason to do so. Which means it would need a large enough target market to make it worth it.QuoteIt seems to be designed as a bench meter which is left on all day, so maybe startup time isn't critical but the battery life is. The shape is also all wrong for bench use - it's way too tall and wobbly to use on the stand.
That's true today, but what about back in 2008?QuoteObviously the Unit-T died with the grill starter but it's a Uni-T.
Which is sorta the point. The Uni-T is a 400 dollar meter (the current price, before shipping, from the Uni-T store on Amazon). The Fluke is certainly more expensive, but not that much more expensive (the 287 is $580 MSRP, but Amazon currently sells it for $480).
The Uni-T may be more featureful and more modern. What a surprise, seeing how it's, what, about 10 years newer? But the Fluke is a higher quality meter, likely by a lot. The fact that Fluke has amortized the engineering cost of the 287 over such a long period of time is one of the reasons it's not even more expensive than it is. Honestly, I'm astonished that it's anywhere close to being price competitive with the Uni-T.
But yeah, it's no substitute for a bench meter. If it's a bench meter you want, then get a bench meter and be done with it.
-
Once Fluke introduces a model, it isn't likely to change it except to fix actual faults in it, precisely because of the procurement stability characteristic that makes Fluke meters desirable to a lot of buyers.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these meters go through various certification programs in order to be salable to certain buyers (such as government contractors). If that's the case, then you do not screw with anything in the design or BOM after that, because if you do then you have to go back through certification all over again.
This is on the Fluke web site today:
"New functionality" happens, and it's a feature!
(Is that a Fluke Phone?)
-
Why do you think Fluke introduced a new model variant of the 87
You mean the 87V Max?
The "Max" is cynical marketing by Fluke, it's a rebadge of the 28II so that all the people who go looking for an 87V see the word "Max" and think it must be a better 87V.
IMHO the "Max" undermines everything that's been said here about long term stability of product lines because the 87V and 87V Max aren't the same electrical spec.
Also: Anybody who was relying on supply of the 28 II now has a problem. Fluke has left them high and dry.
-
Why do you think Fluke introduced a new model variant of the 87
You mean the 87V Max?
No, I mean the 87V after the 87IV, the 87IV after the 87III, etc.
Maybe the "max" qualifies as the next meter in the lineage. Can't say.
And the way you're talking suggests you're missing some of what I wrote. I wrote "instead of simply changing up the existing variant" as part of the sentence you responded to above. The point of what I wrote should be obvious: Fluke doesn't generally seem to make changes to meters in their existing lineup, but instead offers new variants (the "max" might well qualify, whatever you might think of it) for good reason.QuoteIMHO the "Max" undermines everything that's been said here about long term stability of product lines because the 87V and 87V Max aren't the same electrical spec.
Why would the "max" undermine anything, since the 87V is still offered as-is? The "max" is a different meter.QuoteAlso: Anybody who was relying on supply of the 28 II now has a problem. Fluke has left them high and dry.
Why? The 28 II is still available.
Is Fluke discontinuing any of these meters? If so, their site doesn't make that readily apparent, at least that I've seen.
-
Why do you think Fluke introduced a new model variant of the 87
You mean the 87V Max?
No, I mean the 87V after the 87IV, the 87IV after the 87III, etc.
The 87IV was a complete redesign, not an incremental step. People panicked even though it was a much better meter.
The other steps (from 87 -> 87II, from 87II -> 87III) were gradual and well received.