Products > Test Equipment
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:
--- Quote from: bdunham7 on December 24, 2022, 03:51:52 am ---
--- Quote from: BillyO on December 24, 2022, 02:38:51 am ---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?
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: BillyO on December 24, 2022, 01:51:13 pm ---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".
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: bdunham7 on December 24, 2022, 04:32:39 pm ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version