Products > Test Equipment
Good multimeter for Industrial use at work (Fluke alternatives)
BillyO:
--- Quote from: BeBuLamar on December 25, 2022, 01:22:44 pm ---I never like buying something from a company that doesn't make the products.
--- End quote ---
Fluke do not make all their meters. Many of the more affordable models are made for Fluke in the far east.
BeBuLamar:
and I don't buy those models.
geggi1:
Try the Fluke 177
I have two for them and they have been working flawlessly for 15 years
iet:
--- Quote from: MerlijnD on December 22, 2022, 02:22:03 pm ---I was wondering if you people have any alternatives to Fluke for this type of work which are cheaper but offer the same features and are also durable/rugged?
--- End quote ---
https://www.kew-ltd.co.jp/en/products/detail/00977/
bdunham7:
--- Quote from: BillyO on December 24, 2022, 05:36:25 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
I don't want to spend time parsing out the summary judgment motion, but defendants will always argue 1) the product wasn't defective 2) if it was defective, the defect didn't cause the damages 3) if the defect did cause the damages, the product was misused or mishandled.... and in this case 4) if the product was defective and the damages were a result of that defect, we still shouldn't pay because (fill in excuse here)....
I only included this in the original post to show that in the case of rebadged offshore products, you might have a difficult time holding anyone accountable if something bad happens. Please take my word as an expert that there is nothing else stated in this document and any attempt to infer or read in other information is pointless. All of the issues you raise were briefly mentioned only to be dismissed as MOOT because Southwire was immune from liability under Kentucky law. The court only actually considered facts relevant to that issue. They did not reach any decision as to whether the meter was proven defective or whether the plaintiff's expert was reliable or not. Again, defendants counsel will almost always make those motions at this stage of litigation and those motions are almost always denied.
--- Quote ---Is there another document which I could read that provides more information?
--- End quote ---
The first document from the MSHA that I linked in the original post should tell you all you need to know. You can also read this self-serving recall notice from Southwire's PR department.
https://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/07/prweb12012744.htm
The issue with CEMs IP67 meters not being so waterproof has also been discussed elsewhere.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version