Good multimeter for Industrial use at work (Fluke alternatives)

[nightfire]

And frankly, given the requirements of:

- industrial environment with vibrations
- dual display (because of monitoring frequency in relation to rpm of the moving parts)
- magnet hanger
- calibration papertrail

this narrows this down to a small selection of multimeters you can get in europe that fulfill those requirements. Frankly, Fluke might even be the best and cheapest (longterm) solution for the stuff the OP is doing. I would trust Gossen Metrawatt multimeters build-wise including the silicone holster to be as robust as a Fluke 87V, but those Metrahits are nearly double the price...
Keysight? I have the impression they are withdrawing from this market segment, and my U1272A is nice, but also same price as a Fluke, which I would regard as better regarding build quality.

In Europe you have also Chauvin Arnoux, which also has a decent reputation, or HT Instruments, that are rather tending to niches, and are nowhere as popular or available as Fluke multimeters, that you literally can get at every corner or online retailer.

[BillyO]

Can you provide a link or a citation to any kind of a record or an article of or about someone being killed by their modern multimeter in the last decade?

Links in this post.  Not quite killed (in this case) and not Brymen, but CEM rebadged as a USA brand.  This is what a long-time Fluke user that isn't a multimeter enthusiast is going to worry about.  THey aren't going to know the difference between CEM, UNI-T and Brymen.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hear-kitty-kitty-kitty-nope-not-that-kind-of-cat/msg3714598/#msg3714598

Having read the entire document I have to agree with the court's decision based on this: "Taylor’s claims fail for lack of proof."  There were no witnesses to the event, there were no reliable tests done to demonstrate the meter was the cause of the explosion and not Taylor's own error in use.  Is there anything there that is proof to you that if the meter had "Fluke" written on it the event would not have occurred?

I guess the court did not require that the meter be tested by a forensic lab of record because the injury was not fatal, but it seems to me that that step was lacking.  We just don't know what actually happened.  Basically we have to go on Taylor's word and the analysis of his so named "proposed expert".

[coromonadalix]

Court adjourned   lolll

It seems to go towards Fluke, because of their availability, calibrations ..   "easier to get and service"

I have one facility in my town, easy for Fluke, HP, Agilent, Keysight stuff, and some TEK  scopes  <1 ghz  bw,  they began to do the Rigol and Siglent brand

But not for the high end models i have, i have to send them  300km away

And here when we say Industrial, "the Yellow is the winner"

I rest my case

And yes   they should had examined the instrument in question ... even on a non fatal injury

[bdunham7]

Having read the entire document I have to agree with the court's decision based on this: "Taylor’s claims fail for lack of proof."  There were no witnesses to the event, there were no reliable tests done to demonstrate the meter was the cause of the explosion and not Taylor's own error in use.  Is there anything there that is proof to you that if the meter had "Fluke" written on it the event would not have occurred?

I guess the court did not require that the meter be tested by a forensic lab of record because the injury was not fatal, but it seems to me that that step was lacking.  We just don't know what actually happened.  Basically we have to go on Taylor's word and the analysis of his so named "proposed expert".

I'm not sure what you read, but that case was not decided on the basis of 'lack of proof' that the meter was defective or doubt that the defect caused the accident.  Nor could it have been decided on that basis at the summary judgment phase in this case.  The only legal issue remotely close to that was whether Southwire was aware that the meters manufactured for them by CEM were defective.  The UL determined that the meters sold by Lowes did not conform to the examples that had been submitted to the UL and Southwire later recalled those meters for these defects, although somewhat reluctantly. 

As for whether the accident would have happened with a non-defective meter, keep in mind that the summary judgement I posted isn't the whole record.  The meter was examined by forensic experts, the UL did conclude that the meter was not manufactured to standard and I'm pretty sure that the difference between an external fault and one internal to the meter would have been fairly obvious.  Southwire isn't even arguing here that the meter wasn't defective.  The reason the summary judgment doesn't mention all of that is that the court determined that under Kentucky law all of those things were irrelevant as to Southwire's liability.

[BillyO]

I'm not sure what you read, but that case was not decided on the basis of 'lack of proof' that the meter was defective or doubt that the defect caused the accident.  Nor could it have been decided on that basis at the summary judgment phase in this case.  The only legal issue remotely close to that was whether Southwire was aware that the meters manufactured for them by CEM were defective.  The UL determined that the meters sold by Lowes did not conform to the examples that had been submitted to the UL and Southwire later recalled those meters for these defects, although somewhat reluctantly. 

As for whether the accident would have happened with a non-defective meter, keep in mind that the summary judgement I posted isn't the whole record.  The meter was examined by forensic experts, the UL did conclude that the meter was not manufactured to standard and I'm pretty sure that the difference between an external fault and one internal to the meter would have been fairly obvious.  Southwire isn't even arguing here that the meter wasn't defective.  The reason the summary judgment doesn't mention all of that is that the court determined that under Kentucky law all of those things were irrelevant as to Southwire's liability.

I read the document you linked to in the other thread: "Case: 7:14-cv-00175-ART-EBA   Doc #: 41"  The defense moved for summary judgement based partly on Taylor's lack of proof.  What I wrote above is  a direct quote from the document.  They must have reason to claim lack of proof and to have the plaintiffs expert testimony excluded. 

Is there another document which I could read that provides more information?

[jonpaul]

Our experience with Fluke over decades has prooved their robustness and worth.

Yes they cost more than the Chinese clones, you get what you pay for.

The Fluke 87V is specifically for industrial applications with many features for transient filled environments.

 There are no fancy charts  or display just a great TRMS  meter, cost much lower and life of battery and display much longer than the 287.

Highly recommended

Bon chance

Jon

[2N3055]

Having read the entire document I have to agree with the court's decision based on this: "Taylor’s claims fail for lack of proof."  There were no witnesses to the event, there were no reliable tests done to demonstrate the meter was the cause of the explosion and not Taylor's own error in use.  Is there anything there that is proof to you that if the meter had "Fluke" written on it the event would not have occurred?

I guess the court did not require that the meter be tested by a forensic lab of record because the injury was not fatal, but it seems to me that that step was lacking.  We just don't know what actually happened.  Basically we have to go on Taylor's word and the analysis of his so named "proposed expert".

I'm not sure what you read, but that case was not decided on the basis of 'lack of proof' that the meter was defective or doubt that the defect caused the accident.  Nor could it have been decided on that basis at the summary judgment phase in this case.  The only legal issue remotely close to that was whether Southwire was aware that the meters manufactured for them by CEM were defective.  The UL determined that the meters sold by Lowes did not conform to the examples that had been submitted to the UL and Southwire later recalled those meters for these defects, although somewhat reluctantly. 

As for whether the accident would have happened with a non-defective meter, keep in mind that the summary judgement I posted isn't the whole record.  The meter was examined by forensic experts, the UL did conclude that the meter was not manufactured to standard and I'm pretty sure that the difference between an external fault and one internal to the meter would have been fairly obvious.  Southwire isn't even arguing here that the meter wasn't defective.  The reason the summary judgment doesn't mention all of that is that the court determined that under Kentucky law all of those things were irrelevant as to Southwire's liability.

In the same document they pointed out several mistakes tech made. Also that meter was not made or claimed to be made for (Ex) environment, which a coal mine would be (both coal dust and methane risk). That is wrong example...
In that case not even Fluke would be a good brand, but only certified (Ex) models.

[alm]

In the same document they pointed out several mistakes tech made. Also that meter was not made or claimed to be made for (Ex) environment, which a coal mine would be (both coal dust and methane risk). That is wrong example...

Was the incident caused by the meter causing an ignition of a combustible atmosphere, which is what Ex certified models are designed to prevent?

In that case not even Fluke would be a good brand, but only certified (Ex) models.

Why is Fluke not a good brand for Ex certified DMMs?

[2N3055]

In the same document they pointed out several mistakes tech made. Also that meter was not made or claimed to be made for (Ex) environment, which a coal mine would be (both coal dust and methane risk). That is wrong example...

Was the incident caused by the meter causing an ignition of a combustible atmosphere, which is what Ex certified models are designed to prevent?

In that case not even Fluke would be a good brand, but only certified (Ex) models.

Why is Fluke not a good brand for Ex certified DMMs?

No, the incident was a flash arc type. But a coal mine is Ex environment, and that meter was not proper for that place anyways.. And tech made few bad mistakes too..

It's my English. 
I wanted to say that in Ex environment, just any Fluke is not enough. It has to be Ex Fluke or some other Ex certified brand. Actually, if I had to buy Ex meter, Fluke would be on a short list.

[H713]

I'm always hesitant to replace something that works, but I will point out a few things.

First, I know several engineers (myself included) who find the Fluke 289 and 287 to be an incredibly irritating meter to use. The contrast is awful, the tilting bail is a POS that regularly falls off, the battery life is abysmal, etc. Oh, and the UI is a pain on them compared to other meters. Fluke sells a lot of different meters, so my first course of action would be to look at their other offerings and see if any of them meet your needs.

You could buy a couple of good Brymen and Keysight units and offer to let employees try them, and ask for honest feedback. It's not unusual for companies to demo a few brands of equipment to see if there are any advantages to switching.

[BillyO]

I agree.

I've actually always been a bit of a Fluke fan.  I used Fluke exclusively professionally and even bought myself an 8024A when I was 20 at enormous expense (to me at the time) and I sitll had it up until a few months ago when it just went nuts.  I still have 2 Fluke meters (albeit old ones).

I do get it when people say Fluke have a proven track record over and above all the specs and certifications.  It's very true.  However, if good alternatives (like Brymen) never get a fair chance to develop that proven track record, then we'll be basically stuck with a monopoly.

Brymen are really, really solid meters.  Every bit as well built a Flukes and deserve a chance to prove that.  We as consumers, both professionally and on a serious hobbyist level, deserve viable alternatives.  The market needs solid competition.

It may be time to mellow on the yellow just a bit.

[iet]

I will explain in a little more detail my choice of a multimeter PC Work.
First of all, resolution.
DC,AC-0,1mV
DC,AC current-0.1uA
R-0.1ohm
C-10pF
The maximum measured capacitance is 100mF.
Simultaneous display of voltage and frequency.
As for the resolution of the multimeter and the capacitance measurement range, this parameter looks quite good even in comparison with the FLUKE 87V,289.
FLUKE 87V-100pF-1mF.
FLUKE289-10pF-100mF.
Of the additional service functions-light indication of the correct connection of the probes.
Non-contact indication of the presence of voltage.

[Black Phoenix]

I'm always hesitant to replace something that works, but I will point out a few things.

First, I know several engineers (myself included) who find the Fluke 289 and 287 to be an incredibly irritating meter to use. The contrast is awful, the tilting bail is a POS that regularly falls off, the battery life is abysmal, etc. Oh, and the UI is a pain on them compared to other meters. Fluke sells a lot of different meters, so my first course of action would be to look at their other offerings and see if any of them meet your needs.

You could buy a couple of good Brymen and Keysight units and offer to let employees try them, and ask for honest feedback. It's not unusual for companies to demo a few brands of equipment to see if there are any advantages to switching.

That one was my first own DMM and for years I didn't know best. Until I got the 87V by necessity and saw how fast and better it was in most aspects I need, to the point that if one day I get a 189 I may sell the 289.

The only thing that it differentiates is the function of seeing log measurement graphs directly on the screen, something that for my use case I don't see as a plus.

But at the same time having been with me in the beginnings of my professional career makes me think twice.

Probably I will turn into a TEA before I think of selling it.

The reality is that after that no meter released by Fluke replaces it, the 87V still is a money cow and Fluke new experiences with wireless communication between equipments although smart still is a niche use case.

[H713]

The 187 and 189 are still the best meters Fluke ever made, in my opinion, but they're long gone.

The reason I've looked to other brands is that I'm not overly wowed by the current Fluke offerings. There are two "serious" meters offered, the 87V and the 289. The 87V is getting rather dated in its usability (mostly little stuff, to be honest) and the 289 is a pain in the backside. I don't think the 87 V is a bad meter, but I'm just disappointed that Fluke doesn't have something between the 87 V and the 289.

As I have explained in other posts, I think the 289 is a lousy meter that is a pain to use. It's also enormous, to the point of being impractical to use as a handheld for people with normal-sized hands. That leaves the 87 V. So there isn't a lot of choice on the Fluke side.

Furthermore, some of the Fluke meters have what can only be described as "pathetic" display contrast - the 289 is the worst offender here, and honestly, the 189 isn't great either - compared to the Brymen meters I've used (the BM786 and the BM235), it's pretty sad.

[BeBuLamar]

The 187 and 189 are still the best meters Fluke ever made, in my opinion, but they're long gone.

The reason I've looked to other brands is that I'm not overly wowed by the current Fluke offerings. There are two "serious" meters offered, the 87V and the 289. The 87V is getting rather dated in its usability (mostly little stuff, to be honest) and the 289 is a pain in the backside. I don't think the 87 V is a bad meter, but I'm just disappointed that Fluke doesn't have something between the 87 V and the 289.

As I have explained in other posts, I think the 289 is a lousy meter that is a pain to use. It's also enormous, to the point of being impractical to use as a handheld for people with normal-sized hands. That leaves the 87 V. So there isn't a lot of choice on the Fluke side.

Furthermore, some of the Fluke meters have what can only be described as "pathetic" display contrast - the 289 is the worst offender here, and honestly, the 189 isn't great either - compared to the Brymen meters I've used (the BM786 and the BM235), it's pretty sad.

I do agree with you on this. The 87V is rather basic. The 289 is a pain to use. Its display is so low in contrast and it's slow autoranging in resistance mode. I do also agree that the 189 is a better meter. But going away from Fluke I wouldn't want to go cheap but rather others that cost the same or more like Gossen. Hioki, Yokogawa. I wouldn't go Brymen or UniT.

[Fungus]

I do get it when people say Fluke have a proven track record over and above all the specs and certifications.  It's very true.  However, if good alternatives (like Brymen) never get a fair chance to develop that proven track record, then we'll be basically stuck with a monopoly.

Yep, and sadly in the USA that's probably never going to happen because Brymen seem have an exclusive deal with Greenlee and Greenlee sell them very overpriced and mixed with other brands. They'll never get the sort of brand recognition that way.

The 187 and 189 are still the best meters Fluke ever made, in my opinion, but they're long gone.

The 187 was originally sold as the 87 IV but the backlash was huge and Fluke quickly went backwards with the 87 V. People don't want change. Fluke is basically stuck making the 87 V forever (although that's not a problem for Fluke - their profit margins must be huge on it).

I'm just disappointed that Fluke doesn't have something between the 87 V and the 289.

They have no motivation whatsoever to do that, even though they could make several improvements to the 87V which wouldn't change the basic functionality in any way.

Furthermore, some of the Fluke meters have what can only be described as "pathetic" display contrast - the 289 is the worst offender here, and honestly, the 189 isn't great either - compared to the Brymen meters I've used (the BM786 and the BM235), it's pretty sad.

Yep. My 187 display is terrible compared to my Brymen.

Even free DT830 "Harbor Freight" meters have better displays. Sure, they have less screen segments and less mutliplexing but if Brymen can make a decent display there's no reason Fluke can't at the prices they charge.

[nightfire]

One other question that should also be asked before going into wild guesses which DMM is better than any Fluke: What does the OP and his technicians really need?

From my own experience (last employer datacenter) there are situations where you simply want to get a reading quickly and move on without too much hassle  fiddling with your gear.
And here I have to admit that the usage of any Fluke DMM from basic up to the 87 series is quite straightforward and intuitive.
(289 etc. really do not count as simple DMMs)

Measurement-wise, what do they require in precision and measuring modes?
And not unimportant: calibration services including turnaround time until the multimeter is useable by the technician again.

[Fungus]

Bottom line: Get a couple of BM869s and BM859s and give them to some of the most "influential" engineers at the company so they can use the dual displays, etc. Sell them on the CAT IV 1000V rating and make sure other people know they can trade in their Flukes if they want to. See if you get a trickle down effect inside the company.

For repairs I probably wouldn't make much effort. They're a third of the price so just have a supply of new ones. I really don;t think they're going to fail anyway.

I'm sure calibration is a solvable problem, too. Give Welectron a call and see if you can work something out. If you calibrate meters in batches then shipping will be the least of it.

[Monkeh]

But going away from Fluke I wouldn't want to go cheap but rather others that cost the same or more

Because again you're basing your decisions on name and cost, not an evaluation of the equipment.

[Fungus]

From my own experience (last employer datacenter) there are situations where you simply want to get a reading quickly and move on without too much hassle  fiddling with your gear.
And here I have to admit that the usage of any Fluke DMM from basic up to the 87 series is quite straightforward and intuitive.

The one possible advantage of Fluke over Brymen in the field is that Brymens remember their mode when you switch them off, eg. if you were in DC current mode when you switched it off then it will power on in DC mode. A Fluke 87V will always power on in AC mode.

This can be good or bad depending on how you look at it: If you're grabbing a random meter from a toolbox then powering on in a known mode means you can rely on muscle memory instead of having to look at  the display to see what mode it's in. OTOH having AC mode as the default would annoy the hell out of me on the workbench.

[BeBuLamar]

I guess I don't know Brymen because they are not sold in the US. I wouldn't buy the Greenlee though. I never like buying something from a company that doesn't make the products.

[tooki]

I guess I don't know Brymen because they are not sold in the US. I wouldn't buy the Greenlee though. I never like buying something from a company that doesn't make the products.

Then you can’t buy a huge share of products on the market, since contract manufacturing and rebadging are now extremely widespread.

I mean, if you know the Greenlee is rebadged Brymen, then buying a Greenlee is buying a Brymen.

[Monkeh]

I guess I don't know Brymen because they are not sold in the US. I wouldn't buy the Greenlee though. I never like buying something from a company that doesn't make the products.

Well then you'll be shocked to learn Brymen is an OEM for Fluke.

[BeBuLamar]

I guess I don't know Brymen because they are not sold in the US. I wouldn't buy the Greenlee though. I never like buying something from a company that doesn't make the products.

Well then you'll be shocked to learn Brymen is an OEM for Fluke.

If that is true but it's not.

[Monkeh]

I guess I don't know Brymen because they are not sold in the US. I wouldn't buy the Greenlee though. I never like buying something from a company that doesn't make the products.

Well then you'll be shocked to learn Brymen is an OEM for Fluke.

If that is true but it's not.

Oh, it's not? Why, then, are they the biggest receiver of Brymen shipments in the US?

https://www.importgenius.com/suppliers/brymen-technology-corporation
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/repair/dead-brymen-bm869s/msg3606703/#msg3606703

I'm sure they just import thousands of meters a month, including ones with their own model numbers on, for evaluation.