Because, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there are applications where things are for all intents and purposes cast in stone. Things like military and aerospace test and maintenance.
And I've said repeatedly that I don't believe that those things are as cast in stone as you think they are. If they were we'd all still be using the Fluke 27FM.
If something suitable and yellow comes along then things will change. Not overnight, sure, but... change can happen.
The funny thing is, Broadcasting was a "Regulated industry", but really, at least in Oz, the regulator didn't really give a stuff about how you achieved it, as long as the ultimate product transmitted to the viewers/listeners was within spec for the applicable Broadcast Standards.
TV & sound broadcasting equipment was often subject to major modification over the decades of life which were common in the past, to allow for the unavailability of earlier components.
Replacing all failed components "like for like" would have been incredibly costly, & pretty much untenable.
I work in the broadcast industry as well, and we are a regulated industry, still.
Our license to transmit requires us to do (and not do) a lot of things, and some of those are related to physics, like frequencies, output power, complicance to EBU standards (R 128 for programme loudness comes to mind) et c.
Fortunately, we (and our sub-contractor who is responsible for transmissions) only need to prove that we are right, and that shall be verified by the regulator. We don't have to have a process approval, only an end result approval.
The overwhelming part of "regulation" as a matter of fact controls what you publish, which can be checked with patience, a TV set, and a stopwatch.
In medical, aerospace, and similar industries, the result counts, but the process might cause harm while producing the result, so the process is regulated to much higher degrees.
Because, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there are applications where things are for all intents and purposes cast in stone. Things like military and aerospace test and maintenance.And I've said repeatedly that I don't believe that those things are as cast in stone as you think they are. If they were we'd all still be using the Fluke 27FM.
I'm not saying it's no good, I'm saying it's still got a little bit of space for improvements.
But ... the people here say it's untouchable, that no change is ever possible or even desirable.
I find it much easier to believe that if Fluke announces the Fluke 87 VI tomorrow then everybody here would be on the Fluke website within 10 seconds to read the specs and find pricing/availability.
I find it much easier to believe that if Fluke announces the Fluke 87 VI tomorrow then everybody here would be on the Fluke website within 10 seconds to read the specs and find pricing/availability.
You included.Of course we would go look. But that doesn’t mean we’d rush to actually replace our 87V’s, nor that we would rush to change all our test procedures at work.
If they were we'd all still be using the Fluke 27FM.Ironically Fluke had to dumb down the new 28-II meter and make the 27-II meter just to satisfy their military customers.
I did laugh and then cry that Fluke HQ is next door to Boeing in Everett Washington.
Oh look, they both had "Max" projects as a rehash of some old product because they are unable to make anything clean slate.
You seem upset that Fluke aren't making the meter you want at the price you want. I'd try and get over that, because they probably never will.No, I'm trying to understand why we'll all still be using the Fluke 87V a thousand years from now.
Makes no sense to me.Fungus, we talked about this...
I'm not saying it's no good, I'm saying it's still got a little bit of space for improvements.
But ... the people here say it's untouchable, that no change is ever possible or even desirable.
I find it much easier to believe that if Fluke announces the Fluke 87 VI tomorrow then everybody here would be on the Fluke website within 10 seconds to read the specs and find pricing/availability.
You included.
Because, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there are applications where things are for all intents and purposes cast in stone. Things like military and aerospace test and maintenance.
And I've said repeatedly that I don't believe that those things are as cast in stone as you think they are. If they were we'd all still be using the Fluke 27FM.
And I've said repeatedly that I don't believe that those things are as cast in stone as you think they are. If they were we'd all still be using the Fluke 27FM.Just because you refuse to believe something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Lots of people believe the earth is flat, but that doesn’t make it so...
These meters are so expensive that people aren't just going to rush and out buy the new one.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary, eg. en actual example of an official procedure/manual which says "Take the Fluke 87V and select voltage mode, then measure voltage at test point A".
Even if you do, how common would they be compared to one that says: "Using an approved multimeter, select voltage mode then measure voltage at test point A".
Personally I'd hope they'd choose a much safer meter than the 87V for critical systems or life/death situations, eg. one that doesn't have four holes in the front to make mistakes connecting the test leads to it and only has one function per range selector position.
And I've said repeatedly that I don't believe that those things are as cast in stone as you think they are. If they were we'd all still be using the Fluke 27FM.Just because you refuse to believe something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary, eg. en actual example of an official procedure/manual which says "Take the Fluke 87V and select voltage mode, then measure voltage at test point A".
Lots of people believe the earth is flat, but that doesn’t make it so...
Do "lots" of people seriously believe that?
Anyway.... reading these manuals, in many cases the test procedures would call out specific equipment to be used.
According to the multimeter spreadsheet....
The Bryman BM869 & Greenlee DM-860A have a single 9V battery.
The Fluke 87V has a 9V battery
Fluke 289 & 287 use 6 AA batteries. Those meters need an update for battery power draw.
I personally prefer 9V batteries due to leakage issues with AA/AAA
I’ll leave it up to (ex-) military folks to answer that, as they know it better than I. I have seen (non-military) procedure manuals specifying a particular model of test gear, though.
But the 121GW Kickstarter 2017 raised AU $645K. Does it really cost that much to make a clean slate multimeter? And Dave's not going down that road again for some reason.
I’ll leave it up to (ex-) military folks to answer that, as they know it better than I. I have seen (non-military) procedure manuals specifying a particular model of test gear, though.
Yes, I've seen lists of "Equipment to be used" followed by a list of model numbers. What happens if the device breaks and they can't get another one? Work can't stop, there has to be a substitute device.
(Pass me a pencil and I'll fix the manual...)
The Army plans for availability and obsolescence. In the case of the Fluke 27FM I believe they made a deal with Fluke to garantee production for X number of years which is why Fluke was still making them well into the 21st century.
Anyway.... reading these manuals, in many cases the test procedures would call out specific equipment to be used.
Is just that so that the grunts don't try to measure volts on the signal generator or is detailed operation of the equipment used contained inside each test procedure?
ie. Does it say "measure the voltage using the HP1234A" then assume you're going to read the HP1234A operators manual to find out how to measure voltage, or does the test procedure include pictures of the HP1234A along with where to put the cables and which buttons to push.
The "read the device manual" makes most sense but I've seen some military paperwork and it's measured in shelf-feet so the other option is entirely possible. OTOH it makes you incredibly dependent on availability of the devices so it seems like a really bad idea. It's also a lot more work to produce the documentation, but hey... taxpayer money!
I understand some civilian industries are very procedure driven. Makes sense really. Medical and nuclear power generation to name a few.
QuoteDo "lots" of people seriously believe that?While they’re still a minority, it’s a shockingly large number of people. (I mean, it should be zero. Not several percent. Some surveys put it at over 5%!! ) If you have Netflix, there’s a glorious documentary about them called “Behind the Curve”. Be judicious about eating or drinking while watching it, as those people are inadvertently hilarious.
https://www.netflix.com/title/81015076?s=i&trkid=255824129