4 wire & 2 wire resistance tests, various cheap Kelvin clips, various meters

[Electro Fan]

After reading lots of posts about the DE-5000 and it's 4 wire alligator leads (vs. modified longer 4 wire leads which I haven't got around to making yet) vs various Kelvin clips vs 2 wire vs other LCR and some ESR meters, below are some tests of a 1 ohm Dale resistor.

Preliminary conclusion: 
While 4 wire is (potentially/probably) superior to 2 wire (although with null you can make a case for 2 wire), my results don’t seem to be highly repeatable.  Might be temperature changes, air movement, and very possibly how exactly the clips are connected, and maybe even how well the banana plugs are seated in the meter.  Might also be that I have lousy Kelvin leads.
Net, net:  nothing definitive, it's hard to get repeatable tests results; I have one more hopefully better set of Kelvin leads on the way.

Measurements in ohms:

1.021 DE-5500 with 4 wire standard alligator clips at 1kHz, 1.02 at 100Hz
1.022 DE-5500 with 4 wire standard alligator clips at 1kHz, 1.02 at 100Hz 2nd test

33465A setup - let connections for each test settle for 10 seconds, then started 3 min test and took average measurement.

Kelvin leads used with 33465A
Set #1 Black leads into one handle on each clip - most confidence, but it's mostly a hunch so far, nothing definitive
Set #2 Grey leads into one handle on each clip - least (not much) confidence
Set #3 Red leads into both handles, Black leads into both handles - confidence TBD

1.02010 33465A 4 wire Kelvin clips Set #1 (Black leads into one handle on each clip) 1st test (this test result is suspect due to next 3 tests getting very different results - but maybe it should be the best result since it is close to the DE-5000 results, in which case all 3 sets of cheap Kelvin leads are suspect)
1.01473 33465A 4 wire Kelvin clips Set #1 2nd test
1.01586 33465A 4 wire Kelvin clips Set #1 3rd test
1.01501 33465A 4 wire Kelvin clips Set #1 4th test

1.01697 33465A 4 wire Kelvin clips Set #2 (Gray leads into one handle on each clip) 1st test
1.01215 33465A 4 wire Kelvin clips Set #2 2nd test

1.01474 33465A 4 wire Kelvin clips Set #3 (Red leads into both handles, Black leads into both handles) 1st test
1.02210 33465A 4 wire Kelvin clips Set #3 2nd test

1.01579 33465A 4 wire (4 individual leads) 1st test
1.01048 33465A 4 wire (4 individual leads) 2nd test

1.06371 33465A 2 wire

The following handheld meter tests settled much faster than the 33465A.

Fluke 179 1.1
Aneng 8008 1.10
Radio Shack 22-812 1.0-1.1 (flutters somewhat)

[bob91343]

As has been variously said, dissimilar metal interfaces and the details of the connections are important for such precise measurements.  Measurements using dc are susceptible.  Measurements using ac may cancel the thermal sources but are subject to skin effect, depending on frequency.

[srb1954]

As has been variously said, dissimilar metal interfaces and the details of the connections are important for such precise measurements.  Measurements using dc are susceptible.  Measurements using ac may cancel the thermal sources but are subject to skin effect, depending on frequency.

Kelvin measurements using AC are also susceptible to errors due to mutal inductance and capacitive coupling between the sense and drive leads.

[WattsThat]

Lead sets 1 & 2 are a complete and useless for 4 wire measurements since they aren’t 4 wire devices.

Set 3 is correct and the connectors need to be oriented vertically in the meter.

With the same lead set and a warmed up meter: Connect, stabilize, measure, disconnect. Repeat.

Now what do the results tell you?

[Electro Fan]

Lead sets 1 & 2 are a complete and useless for 4 wire measurements since they aren’t 4 wire devices.

The routing of the four wires is maybe not as important as where they are connected to the clip jaws, no?

For example:
https://www.testequity.com/product/Keithley-5806-Kelvin-Clip-Leads-19218-1

[MosherIV]

The routing of the four wires is maybe not as important as where they are connected to the clip jaws, no?

Yes. The poster is uncertain if the first 2 are connected correctly due to the way the wires enter the kelvin clamp. You would have to inspect or test if each wire goes only to one side of the clamp.

With reputable manufacturers like Keithley, they will have connected it correctly.

As you are finding measuring at these low values is quite difficult.

[GreyWoolfe]

I did the mod to my DER EE 5000 from leads I bought off of evilbay.  I found on one clip that even though the wires were attached to each half of the clip, there was still a short between the 2.  A little bit of work and that fixed the issue.  I just have to remember to do the calibration when I want to use them.  When I made my 4 wire DMM leads, I bought the clips and the retractable banana plugs and I had silicone wire already and they also work quite well.  They aren't $300 test leads but good enough for me.

[Electro Fan]

Ok, I tested each lead for continuity out to the jaw end.  They were all wired properly and consistently but I took the time to mark with tape each related banana plug and jaw and clearly designated a force side vs a sense side for full testing consistency.

In the process I observed the construction a little more closely as well as paid more attention for intermittent behavior during the continuity tests.  It is confirmed that the Kelvin clip Set #2 is the least desirable of the bunch.  I had a hunch that might be the case given the very cheap banana plugs.

I'm going to test Sets #1 and #3 again.

One thing that I'm pretty sure of is that my presence near the equipment and DUT (within 3-4 feet) will impact the temperature (by nearly 1 degree F) which will impact the resistance measurements (I think by ~.393 ohm per degree C) but it seems like that should be a fairly consistent variable across each Kelvin lead test.

I don't know how far I want to with the volt nut, ohm nut, temp nut stuff but this is enough to make me appreciate whatever is being measured at Cern a lot more than I already thought I did. Seems like even just in the milli and barely micro range not much in the test procedure is enough to throw the results off in some direction.

[Electro Fan]

I can get the DE-5500 and the 34465A to agree to within 1 milli ohm using plausible testing methods and data interpretation but it really depends on how the tests are run (duration plus temp control and more).  Eventually it depends somewhat on how you want to interpret the data.  I think 1 milliohm is about as good as it's going to get in my "lab" so I'm inclined to pick my favorite Kelvin leads, rely on those, and keep moving.

I just like it when I can get the same result consistently with a piece of test equipment and when two pieces of test equipment agree with each other.   

[SilverSolder]

As has been variously said, dissimilar metal interfaces and the details of the connections are important for such precise measurements.  Measurements using dc are susceptible.  Measurements using ac may cancel the thermal sources but are subject to skin effect, depending on frequency.

Kelvin measurements using AC are also susceptible to errors due to mutal inductance and capacitive coupling between the sense and drive leads.

If you do it at e.g. 400Hz, those effects would be almost unmeasurable, for low/medium resistance values at least?

[precaud]

I think 1 milliohm is about as good as it's going to get in my "lab" so I'm inclined to pick my favorite Kelvin leads, rely on those, and keep moving.

That has been my experience as well; reliable 1mOhm resolution that that fits well in my workflow is "good enough", and sufficient for my needs most of the time. Although, it is nice to have an extra displayed digit to see if the connection is trending one way or another...

[srb1954]

As has been variously said, dissimilar metal interfaces and the details of the connections are important for such precise measurements.  Measurements using dc are susceptible.  Measurements using ac may cancel the thermal sources but are subject to skin effect, depending on frequency.

Kelvin measurements using AC are also susceptible to errors due to mutal inductance and capacitive coupling between the sense and drive leads.

If you do it at e.g. 400Hz, those effects would be almost unmeasurable, for low/medium resistance values at least?

The manual for the HP 4350A capacitance meter recommends twisting the sense leads to minimise coupling when measuring low-impedance components and that meter only uses a 120Hz  test signal.

[Electro Fan]

As has been variously said, dissimilar metal interfaces and the details of the connections are important for such precise measurements.  Measurements using dc are susceptible.  Measurements using ac may cancel the thermal sources but are subject to skin effect, depending on frequency.

Kelvin measurements using AC are also susceptible to errors due to mutal inductance and capacitive coupling between the sense and drive leads.

If you do it at e.g. 400Hz, those effects would be almost unmeasurable, for low/medium resistance values at least?

The manual for the HP 4350A capacitance meter recommends twisting the sense leads to minimise coupling when measuring low-impedance components and that meter only uses a 120Hz  test signal.
(Attachment Link)

That’s good info on twisting the sense leads.  Thanks
I haven’t been able to find documentation on the frequency used by the 34465A. 

[Shock]

While 4 wire is (potentially/probably) superior to 2 wire (although with null you can make a case for 2 wire), my results don’t seem to be highly repeatable.  Might be temperature changes, air movement, and very possibly how exactly the clips are connected, and maybe even how well the banana plugs are seated in the meter.  Might also be that I have lousy Kelvin leads.

There is no question that Kelvin sensing measurements are superior for precision measurements. However as always the devil is in the detail, as you can probably deduce. The TL-21 interface has a 5th wire the guard connection as well.

I'm not familiar with the idiosyncrasy side of the DE5000s calibration and nulling but it's possible to use the meter to troubleshoot and improve on your measurement accuracy by solving deficiencies in your test leads and technique.

If you have not seen it check out Robrenz's video on the DE5000s repeatability. The other instrument he is using in the video is the LOM 510A which measures down to single digit micro ohms. If you find that interesting I recommend watching his other videos on the LOM 510A and making his various Kelvin leads. I'm not saying go to that much effort, more to illustratate how much they influence results.

[BravoV]

Sharing my experiences with various Kelvin clips.

The one used by the OP is my least favourite one, as their jaw biting power is not strong when measuring big DUT with big terminals like power resistor, big inductor and etc. Also the plastic part tends to get brittle overtime.

Better one is the one made by GWInstek, as its has better precision mechanic and built.



We have member reviewed it while ago -> GWInstek Kelvin clips review

For example:
https://www.testequity.com/product/Keithley-5806-Kelvin-Clip-Leads-19218-1

This model is my fav and mostly grabbed clips as it has powerful jaw that made measurement process not fiddly at big DUTs or big leaded components, especially when we moved alot and sometimes bumped on the clips or even the wires can fluctuate the reading as the teeth moved abit. Mine sourced from Franky's shop years ago, and the metal and the clips teeth are quite strong and wont chipped easily when clipped on hard metal terminals. Also it has very simple mechanism is almost fail and fool proof, and the jaw biting power can be enhanced too if needed.

[Wytnucls]

3 sources of error with Kelvin measurements:

Ohmic contact: Use gold plated probe tips
Thermoelectric EMF offset: Reverse current flow and take the mean of measurements
Heating (I^2R): Lower current source (Range) and reduce measurement time (Trigger).

1 ohm resistor 4W measurement accuracy (1 year):
Keithley 2000: 4mohm
Rigol DM3058E: 6mohm

Both use 1mA test current on their lowest range

[Electro Fan]

Yep, I’ve watched Robrenz's Kelvin videos several times.  He is in the low resistance measuring HOF (Hall of Fame), and the precision machining HOF, and the beautiful restoration HOF.

[SilverSolder]

I don't understand why nobody makes those super cool Kelvin hooks as a commercial product...   Such an elegant concept!

[Electro Fan]

I don't understand why nobody makes those super cool Kelvin hooks as a commercial product...   Such an elegant concept!

+1
Seems like Pomona would be a natural to sell these; maybe they should hire Robrenz to over see the design, manufacturing, and QA testing, and the marketing 

Not sure how big the market is 🤔 but if someone is paying $300 or more for a set of Kelvin leads there must be a fair amount of perceived value.

[Electro Fan]

Big Disclaimer/Request:  no laughing.... 

No doubt low value resistance measurements have a lot of potential variables including finding the right Kelvin clip test leads, and much more (temp, materials, settling, etc, etc).   But.... back to basics:

Given two 4 wire measurements, one showing .0092 ohms and one showing .0097 ohms, is the difference within the specs for the 34465A?  (I'm having a difficult time interpreting the specs.  Thx)

https://www.keysight.com/us/en/assets/7018-03846/data-sheets/5991-1983.pdf

Specifications 34465A
34461A accuracy specifications (pdf says it's for 34461A but I think it's a typo and is for 34465A as well as the 34461A and 34470A):
± (% of reading + % of range)

Relevant Spec?
100 Ω 0.0030 + 0.0030
100 Ω is the range?

So, if we start with .0092 ohms
then we multiply .0092 x .0030% and we get 0.000000276 ohms (not much?)
then we multiply .0030% x 100 ohms (the range) and we get .003 ohms (this is the big one?)
then we add it all up:

.000000276 + .0039476 = .003947876

This would indicate that for .0092 ohms the error could be +/- .003947876 ohms

If that is correct (and I'm betting it's not) that would indicate there is no chance of accurately distinguishing between .0092 and .0097 ohms.

Ok, feel free to issue my F grade for interpreting the specs.   

Thanks

[Electro Fan]

Still hoping that someone(s) will comment on my attempt to interpret the 34465A spec above but in the meantime I might have made some progress.

In the first photo is a measurement showing an average of .00046 ohms - this is just the two Kelvin clip/leads hooked to each other.  If I am interpreting this correctly it is showing that the the combined 4 wires (two of which are sense) and two clips have a total resistance of about half a milliohm (~460 microohms).

This I think this helps explain (maybe partially) why I have not been able to get the consistent 9.2 - 9.3 ohm measurement  that the theory says I should be getting for my reference 45cm 18 gauge copper wire.  With the better (best of the bunch) set of Kelvin clips I was getting about 9.7 - 9.8 milliohms and I think that part of the reason it was too high was that I wasn't accounting for the roughly 0.46 milliohms in the Kelvin clips/leads.

After applying the Offset Compensation with the 34465A the Kelvin clip leads shows -0.00004 which I think is minus? 40 micro ohms - which is still not zero but I can believe we are reaching the threshold of what the meter can do, which I think is probably significantly better than my interpretation of the spec above.  Or maybe my spec interpretation was correct and the meter just exceeds the specs?

Still lots of unknowns to be addressed and learnings to be made.

Looking forward to constructive critiques.... Thx!

[2N3055]

Big Disclaimer/Request:  no laughing.... 

No doubt low value resistance measurements have a lot of potential variables including finding the right Kelvin clip test leads, and much more (temp, materials, settling, etc, etc).   But.... back to basics:

Given two 4 wire measurements, one showing .0092 ohms and one showing .0097 ohms, is the difference within the specs for the 34465A?  (I'm having a difficult time interpreting the specs.  Thx)

https://www.keysight.com/us/en/assets/7018-03846/data-sheets/5991-1983.pdf

Specifications 34465A
34461A accuracy specifications (pdf says it's for 34461A but I think it's a typo and is for 34465A as well as the 34461A and 34470A):
± (% of reading + % of range)

Relevant Spec?
100 Ω 0.0030 + 0.0030
100 Ω is the range?

So, if we start with .0092 ohms
then we multiply .0092 x .0030% and we get 0.000000276 ohms (not much?)
then we multiply .0030% x 100 ohms (the range) and we get .003 ohms (this is the big one?)
then we add it all up:

.000000276 + .0039476 = .003947876

This would indicate that for .0092 ohms the error could be +/- .003947876 ohms

If that is correct (and I'm betting it's not) that would indicate there is no chance of accurately distinguishing between .0092 and .0097 ohms.

Ok, feel free to issue my F grade for interpreting the specs.   

Thanks

The math seems correct, but I would use 1 year specs for it, which are 100 Ω : 0.0060% of value + 0.0040% of range ( unless your instrument was calibrated in last 24 hours..):

(0,0092*60e-6)+(100*40e-6) =0,000000552+ 0,004= 0,004000552 which gives 0,0092 +/- 0,004000552 Ohm as your interval..

[SilverSolder]

I would expect the repeatability to be much better than those specs, if the measurements are made within a few minutes of each other?

[tooki]

Lead sets 1 & 2 are a complete and useless for 4 wire measurements since they aren’t 4 wire devices.

Yes, they are, and it's even visible in the photos, where you can see the second wire folding back near the vertex of the clips. It's very, very common to wire them that way.

[2N3055]

I would expect the repeatability to be much better than those specs, if the measurements are made within a few minutes of each other?

That is absolute measurement accuracy. Short term it should be well qirhin 24h specs for relative measurements.

[SilverSolder]

I would expect the repeatability to be much better than those specs, if the measurements are made within a few minutes of each other?

That is absolute measurement accuracy. Short term it should be well qirhin 24h specs for relative measurements.

Understood.  So it might just be possible to distinguish between very small values, as long as you do it fast! 

[Electro Fan]

Big Disclaimer/Request:  no laughing.... 

No doubt low value resistance measurements have a lot of potential variables including finding the right Kelvin clip test leads, and much more (temp, materials, settling, etc, etc).   But.... back to basics:

Given two 4 wire measurements, one showing .0092 ohms and one showing .0097 ohms, is the difference within the specs for the 34465A?  (I'm having a difficult time interpreting the specs.  Thx)

https://www.keysight.com/us/en/assets/7018-03846/data-sheets/5991-1983.pdf

Specifications 34465A
34461A accuracy specifications (pdf says it's for 34461A but I think it's a typo and is for 34465A as well as the 34461A and 34470A):
± (% of reading + % of range)

Relevant Spec?
100 Ω 0.0030 + 0.0030
100 Ω is the range?

So, if we start with .0092 ohms
then we multiply .0092 x .0030% and we get 0.000000276 ohms (not much?)
then we multiply .0030% x 100 ohms (the range) and we get .003 ohms (this is the big one?)
then we add it all up:

.000000276 + .0039476 = .003947876

This would indicate that for .0092 ohms the error could be +/- .003947876 ohms

If that is correct (and I'm betting it's not) that would indicate there is no chance of accurately distinguishing between .0092 and .0097 ohms.

Ok, feel free to issue my F grade for interpreting the specs.   

Thanks

The math seems correct, but I would use 1 year specs for it, which are 100 Ω : 0.0060% of value + 0.0040% of range ( unless your instrument was calibrated in last 24 hours..):

(0,0092*60e-6)+(100*40e-6) =0,000000552+ 0,004= 0,004000552 which gives 0,0092 +/- 0,004000552 Ohm as your interval..

Thanks for taking the time to review the math and for confirming it is correct for 24 hour measurements.  (I guess that means for measurements made of the same thing made within 24 hours?)

It looks like the one year measurements allow for greater tolerance - but even with the 24 hour measurements the spec seems to be saying that 9.2 milliohms could range from nearly 5.2 milliohms to nearly 13.2 to milliohms.  Based on my various experiments/tests including trying to reproduce the theoretical resistance for 45 cm of 18 gauge copper wire the meter and Kelvin clips seem to be doing much better than the spec.  Which leaves me wondering why the spec would seemingly have so much tolerance.  Maybe it's a general purpose DMM and Keysight doesn't want to go too far out on a limb for resistance measurements and/or maybe they would prefer to sell a specialized milliohm or micro ohm instrument. 

In any event, it's not like anything I am building needs to have 9.2 vs 9.3 milliohms - but after figuring out some of the testing variants (including accounting for temp, settling, and the fairly small Kelvin clip resistance) I'm happy to see that the measurements and trends are starting to make sense and that the meter does seem to significantly exceed the spec.  Mostly it's been a good trip a few feet into the rabbit hole and I'm inclined to climb back out for the time being.   

I've attached a couple more screen captures showing the 45 cm wire over 16 plus hours (and it's now two hours later (~18 hours) and the average is still .000949 so I'm pretty sure right or wrong on the exact value the meter and clips have reached a pretty stable reading and it's a reading that the theory and math say is pretty reasonably close to what should be expected.

[Shock]

Check out this other 34465A thread and the below video. It shows a guarded measurement workaround on the 34465A. If you are diving into micro ohms especially with long cables you need to take a holistic approach. If it was me I would start off with a 2 and 4/5 wire shorting adapter just evaluate the meters settings after running through the auto calibrate and then null etc. If this is done before jumping into different cables and performing measurements you can have a baseline from which to evaluate introduced "measurement noise" then build up from there. Which is why baselines are so important, anything you add including changes in the test environment will have a cumulative effect on the results.

As a consideration if you are squeezing out performance for low ohms compare spending money on expensive cabling against a LOM 510A. One (for repair) was sold here a few weeks back for $75 which seemed a bargain as they are $2000 instruments. This is the route I went a while back, it becomes a lot easier to evaluate cabling, connections and surfaces. You hit the wall pretty fast in low ohms on most instruments.

[Electro Fan]

Check out this other 34465A thread and the below video. It shows a guarded measurement workaround on the 34465A. If you are diving into micro ohms especially with long cables you need to take a holistic approach. If it was me I would start off with a 2 and 4/5 wire shorting adapter just evaluate the meters settings after running through the auto calibrate and then null etc. If this is done before jumping into different cables and performing measurements you can have a baseline from which to evaluate introduced "measurement noise" then build up from there. Which is why baselines are so important, anything you add including changes in the test environment will have a cumulative effect on the results.

As a consideration if you are squeezing out performance for low ohms compare spending money on expensive cabling against a LOM 510A. One (for repair) was sold here a few weeks back for $75 which seemed a bargain as they are $2000 instruments. This is the route I went a while back, it becomes a lot easier to evaluate cabling, connections and surfaces. You hit the wall pretty fast in low ohms on most instruments.

That is an excellent video.  What it shows is consistent with what I've experienced (without having the guard). 

The LOM 510A is a very cool instrument but at some point either space or the budget (or both) could be stressed.

Most importantly, the path you describe above (highlighted in colors) makes a ton of sense.  Thanks for the insight, advice, and encouragement.

[Electro Fan]

Last post on this particular test before shutting down the test.

At 25 hours it looks like it continues to be be very stable with an average of 9.49 milliohms.

[Electro Fan]

Ok, I couldn’t "resist".   

Found my new favorite Kelvin leads...

Here is another test using a set of BK Precision TLDK1 Kelvin leads.  You can compare the day long results to the post above; also attached is a third image showing an interim short term (one minute) snapshot - I think it indicates a pretty steady state that probably mostly reflects the ADC trying to do it's thing but that might also reflect some fairly stable characteristic of the BK Precision Kelvin clips and leads.

Overall the test shows similar performance to the Kelvin leads I posted before (in the post above).  The BK Precision leads averaged 9.46 milli ohms vs. the other (eBay) leads that averaged 9.49 milli ohms.  Both tests were about 25 hours.  My guesstimates, based on my 45 cm 18 gauge copper reference wire, indicate that the BK Precision’s lower measurement (9.46) is closer to what is expected based on theoretical analysis.  Also, the BK lead measurements seemed to dance less on the trend chart with a max 1 day variation of 0.8 milli ohms vs a max 1.5 milli ohms 1 day variation with the eBay leads.

Having said that, I think the difference in the 9.46 vs 9.49 measurements is possibly within the technique used for null or offset compensation (I’m still trying to get a grip on null vs offset comp) - but so far if I had to recommend one or the other I’d go with the BK Precision TLDK1.  The materials and construction look somewhat better on the TLDK1 and given that BK Precision recommends the TLDK1 with their 2840 and 2841 resistance meters, I think they are probably worth the extra $30 (~$50 vs ~$20).  I could be wrong but I don’t think either the BK or eBay leads are shielded so that’s another step up to be addressed if you need/want that.  One advantage of the eBay leads would be that if you had to put the two Kelvin clips apart from one another the eBay leads would reach further (approximately 2 meters vs 50 cm) from one end of a DUT to the other (doesn’t seem likely unless you are measuring wire, and theoretically that could perhaps be coiled up – not sure if coiling is optimum though; without coiling the wire I think the eBay leads will allow a 2 meter separation).

Here are some links for both Kelvin leads (and the BK Precision meters):

eBay “LCR Meter Cable w/ Banana Plug Connectors kelvin clip SMD” 4-Wire Kelvin Test Leads
https://www.ebay.com/itm/LCR-Meter-Cable-w-Banana-Plug-Connectors-kelvin-clip-SMD/381460680487?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649
$19.95 plus shipping

BK Precision Model TLDK1 4-Wire Kelvin Test Leads
https://www.tequipment.net/BK/TLDK1/Kelvin-Test-Leads/?Source=googleshopping&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIubrx_Y326wIVDb7ACh3bAQs_EAQYAyABEgLdZ_D_BwE
Replacement test leads for the 2840 and 2841 DC Resistance Meters
MSRP $52.00 (on sale for $47.30 plus shipping)


https://bkpmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/downloads/datasheets/en-us/2840_Series_datasheet.pdf

https://www.bkprecision.com/products/component-testers/2840-dc-resistance-meter.html

https://www.bkprecision.com/products/component-testers/2841-dc-resistance-meter-with-temperature-correction.html
Model 2840 2841
Display Range 1 µΩ to 20 kΩ 0.1 µΩ to 100 MΩ
Basic Accuracy 0.1% 0.01%

Video demo of TLDK1 leads on a BK Precision meter and a 34465A

[Electro Fan]

Another test with BK Precision Kelvin TLDK1 Kelvin clip leads.

This test was about 40 hours.

Slightly different results.

30 micro ohms higher average (9.49 milliohms vs 9.46 milliohms) on the 40 hour test vs the 25 hour test.
Slightly less variation (9.2 - 9.9 milliohms over 40 hours vs 9.1 - 9.9 milliohms over 25 hours)

[Electro Fan]

Ran another test to see if the 34465A would stop at 50,000 readings.

After about 96 hours it's up to over 51k readings and still going, and the results are pretty consistent with the previous ~1-2 day tests.

[Electro Fan]

Still going.  After about a week (187 hours) the 34465A is still happily sampling.

I had interpreted the spec to say the base memory was sufficient to do 50k samples but after revisiting the spec it says 50k readings.  I would have thought that each reading occurs when the trigger fires (and that a reading was synonymous with a sample), but apparently the reading is just that (a reading) and a reading involves multiple samples (presumably tied to the PLC setting) so the sample readout is just that, the number of samples - not the number of readings.  If I was Keysight I might have chosen to display the number of readings (in addition to also showing the number of samples).  In any event at 100 PLC and 100k samples this thing is still going strong a week later and I don't envision testing anything for more than a week.

I'm happy with the 34465A and the BK Precision TLDK1 Kelvin leads.  The 45cm 18 gauge copper wire DUT is also performing admirably. 

[tooki]

Still going.  After about a week (187 hours) the 34465A is still happily sampling.

I had interpreted the spec to say the base memory was sufficient to do 50k samples but after revisiting the spec it says 50k readings.  I would have thought that each reading occurs when the trigger fires (and that a reading was synonymous with a sample), but apparently the reading is just that (a reading) and a reading involves multiple samples (presumably tied to the PLC setting) so the sample readout is just that, the number of samples - not the number of readings.  If I was Keysight I might have chosen to display the number of readings (in addition to also showing the number of samples).  In any event at 100 PLC and 100k samples this thing is still going strong a week later and I don't envision testing anything for more than a week.

Looking at the user manual, it really looks like they are using the words "reading" and "sample" almost interchangeably, and "measurement" occasionally as a synonym, too (in addition to "measurement" as the general concept of measuring). It looks like they just call it a "sample" in the context of the "digitizer" function, but that it refers to exactly the same thing as a regular reading. From what I glean from the manual, "regular" readings are taken by auto triggering (where an algorithm decides "oh, I think this is an actual reading and not noise") or from being manually triggered. The digitizer mode, in contrast, takes readings at regular intervals, meaning it's acting as a DAC, so they go with "sample" there.

But unlike with the terminology, the manual is very clear on how the memory works: it's a FIFO buffer, so it simply discards the oldest readings/samples/measurements once memory is full. So yeah, it's telling you it's taken 100K+ readings/samples/measurements, but only the newest 50K are actually being evaluated. You can likely let it go and take millions of readings/samples/measurements, but it doesn't mean the memory is actually holding them all.

There's an SCPI command to query for overflow once this happens.

[Shock]

Averaging over 20/40 hours is fairly meaningless anyway aside from the min max during that period.

[Electro Fan]

But unlike with the terminology, the manual is very clear on how the memory works: it's a FIFO buffer, so it simply discards the oldest readings/samples/measurements once memory is full. So yeah, it's telling you it's taken 100K+ readings/samples/measurements, but only the newest 50K are actually being evaluated. You can likely let it go and take millions of readings/samples/measurements, but it doesn't mean the memory is actually holding them all.

“but only the newest 50K are actually being evaluated.”

Any chance even though the memory is being replaced FIFO style the stats including min, max, and also average might be based on the full duration of the test?

[tooki]

That’s a good question, and I don’t know. It’d be easy enough to test, though.