| Products > Test Equipment |
| Good multimeter for Industrial use at work (Fluke alternatives) |
| << < (12/26) > >> |
| 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:
--- Quote from: bdunham7 on December 24, 2022, 04:32:39 pm --- --- 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. --- End quote --- 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:
--- Quote from: 2N3055 on December 24, 2022, 08:38:08 pm ---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... --- End quote --- Was the incident caused by the meter causing an ignition of a combustible atmosphere, which is what Ex certified models are designed to prevent? --- Quote from: 2N3055 on December 24, 2022, 08:38:08 pm ---In that case not even Fluke would be a good brand, but only certified (Ex) models. --- End quote --- Why is Fluke not a good brand for Ex certified DMMs? |
| 2N3055:
--- Quote from: alm on December 24, 2022, 10:22:16 pm --- --- Quote from: 2N3055 on December 24, 2022, 08:38:08 pm ---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... --- End quote --- Was the incident caused by the meter causing an ignition of a combustible atmosphere, which is what Ex certified models are designed to prevent? --- Quote from: 2N3055 on December 24, 2022, 08:38:08 pm ---In that case not even Fluke would be a good brand, but only certified (Ex) models. --- End quote --- Why is Fluke not a good brand for Ex certified DMMs? --- End quote --- 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. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |