EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread

[newbrain]

34465A: 1.2 V up 1.0 V down

Finally we got a winner! 
The nominal counts for this meter are 1000000, so its hysteresis is not across its range but above!

All the others meters must clearly be exceptions!
 

[beanflying]

You guys are clearly unable to see the immensity of the issue and pushing the manual range button is just so hard 

Cruddy Victor 86B 4000 count logging meter up at 4000 and down at 3500.

My couple of bench meters so not perhaps applicable.
Agilent 34401A up at 1200000 and down at 1000000 having to lock ranges measuring 1 & 10V references is destroying my faith in it as it loses resolution
Advantest 6871E up at 2000000 and down at 1800000 clearly a superior beast for Vref testing at 1 & 10V as the Auto range is 'perfect' for the measurement at hand.

Think you will find the 34465A is 'rated' at 120K 100k + 20% over range as it is 34401a derived.

Want more resolution push a button or buy a better meter?

From the 34401A manual

Resolution
Resolution is the numeric ratio of the maximum displayed value divided
by the minimum displayed value on a selected range. Resolution is
often expressed in percent, parts-per-million (ppm), counts, or bits.
For example, a 6 1⁄2-digit multimeter with 20% overrange capability can
display a measurement with up to 1,200,000 counts of resolution.
This corresponds to about 0.0001% (1 ppm) of full scale, or 21 bits
including the sign bit. All four specifications are equivalent

edit must wear glasses or use commas typing 000's

[joeqsmith]

Updated my list again.  The OWON and UT61E are both listed at 22,000 count meters.  Once again, the break points straddle the rated count. 

I am still looking for at least one handheld meter that does what CDaniel claims they do.  Surely they must have seen this at least once in their life to make such a bold claim but I think it would be difficult to locate based on the data we have gathered so far.

[Dundarave]

I'm just about to order up a 121GW for myself, after assimilating the combined wisdom in the various 121GW threads.  The meter appears to offer incredible value, and it will certainly fit my needs, despite any arguable negatives.

But before I placed my order, I did want to confirm that there is no new hardware version imminent, like, shipping the day after I get the current version delivered, lol.

I realize that firmware updates are an ongoing thing, but I would just hate to miss out on hardware version 2.0 or whatever by a few weeks and end up with "old stock" (although I realize that getting in on the first run of any manufacturing version has its risks).

Thanks - 

[GeoffreyF]

I see no reason to believe there is a new hardware version coming out, not at least in the sense that it would be improved or have better specifications.   With any other meter, it would be rather hard to say that because such things are more closed.  With this one, it would be actively discussed here.   That said, there is always the possibility with any manufactured product of minor changes but not ones which appreciably alter the specifications.

There also may be other firms with something in the offing that would be interesting but this particular meter is also a relatively new release itself.   My sense or view of such things is whether the product is the best for your purposes and purse.  If yes, then that's it.  If not, then keep shopping. My sense of where things are going is that there is more specialization for particular trades.  General purpose meters are pretty similar but differ in ruggedness or accuracy - tracking price.   I like my 121 GW a lot.  It's been great.

[EEVblog]

But before I placed my order, I did want to confirm that there is no new hardware version imminent, like, shipping the day after I get the current version delivered, lol.
I realize that firmware updates are an ongoing thing, but I would just hate to miss out on hardware version 2.0 or whatever by a few weeks and end up with "old stock" (although I realize that getting in on the first run of any manufacturing version has its risks).

Nope, no new v2.0 hardware coming any time soon. There is a new PCB layout to integrate the current mods that has supposedly been done, but I have not even seen a prototype of that yet. I wouldn't really call it a V2 meter.
Get the firmware sorted on Git so we have some control of it is the big thing we want to do.

[fboehle]

I feel a public bug tracker for the firmware would be also imensly helpful...

But before I placed my order, I did want to confirm that there is no new hardware version imminent, like, shipping the day after I get the current version delivered, lol.
I realize that firmware updates are an ongoing thing, but I would just hate to miss out on hardware version 2.0 or whatever by a few weeks and end up with "old stock" (although I realize that getting in on the first run of any manufacturing version has its risks).

Nope, no new v2.0 hardware coming any time soon. There is a new PCB layout to integrate the current mods that has supposedly been done, but I have not even seen a prototype of that yet. I wouldn't really call it a V2 meter.
Get the firmware sorted on Git so we have some control of it is the big thing we want to do.

[beanflying]

Had a proper play with the autorange resistance switching with V1.58 Beta and had a play with the bluetooth/app I haven't used for a while. Both have improved

Disaster of all disasters it selected 0.4998 k on one occasion instead of the 500.12  it selected on another (34401A 500.034)

Circa 25C data for comparison 500    500.04   121GW      500.017   34401A

Improving the time coding of the bluetooth data recorded straight off the app might be nice 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 ..... Currently over 40C in the shack makes it  o'clock.

Time (s), Temp (°C)
0, 37.8
0.486785, 37.6
1.512485, 37.6
1.999798, 37.6
2.487146, 37.6
2.973385, 37.6
3.460483, 37.6
3.996788, 37.6
4.483994, 37.6
4.971935, 37.6
5.460796, 37.6
........

[Seppy]

Had a proper play with the autorange resistance switching with V1.58 Beta and had a play with the bluetooth/app I haven't used for a while. Both have improved

Disaster of all disasters it selected 0.4998 k on one occasion instead of the 500.12  it selected on another (34401A 500.034)

Circa 25C data for comparison 500    500.04   121GW      500.017   34401A

Improving the time coding of the bluetooth data recorded straight off the app might be nice 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 ..... Currently over 40C in the shack makes it  o'clock.

Time (s), Temp (°C)
0, 37.8
0.486785, 37.6
1.512485, 37.6
1.999798, 37.6
2.487146, 37.6
2.973385, 37.6
3.460483, 37.6
3.996788, 37.6
4.483994, 37.6
4.971935, 37.6
5.460796, 37.6
........

The app timing is as shown above is because the samples are not sent with time information and if a sample is dropped it would result in an incorrect value for time (because it would need to be based on 0.5s increments). For example:

0.5
1.0 <- if this was dropped
1.5 <- this would be 1.0

For this reason you see the jitter (the time fluctuations in the decimal points) in the samples, that jitter is the result of the bluetooth overhead. I will try get this added to the packet.

[Kean]

3 decimal places would probably also be sufficient 

[Seppy]

3 decimal places would probably also be sufficient 

LOL definitely. but I'd prefer leave that up to the end user.

[Kean]

3 decimal places would probably also be sufficient 

LOL definitely. but I'd prefer leave that up to the end user.

Sure - sometimes that is useful.  But here (especially with the BLE latency) the time resolution is probably only accurate to several milliseconds.
ISTR the meter can only report at 5Hz, 200ms intervals.  So what point is there in giving microsecond resolution?  It is just misleading.
If someone actually needed microsecond resolution of the readings, they'd be using a completely different instrument.

[EEVblog]

A user wrote a new version of the manual which looks much more professional:
http://www.eevblog.com/files/121GW-Manual-v12-proto.pdf
Not finished yet, wants a yay or nay to continue to finish it off.
It seems based on an older revision, and it's A4 instead of the A5 we have at the moment.
Feedback welcome.

[GeoffreyF]

I like it. It's much more professional and the diagrams are clearer.  Though the 'gray text' is artistic, it might be a bit not dark / contrasting enough.  How will a printed version do in very strong or very weak lighting? (which is often where multi-meters are used).   There also seem to be a few pages without much on them such as "Back light" and of course a few blanks at the end.

I don't find a need to carry a manual with me. However those who do might like the narrower page format better.  Will the printed version fit neatly in the case?

Suggest formatting for two sided pages.

Side note: If 1.58 beta is complete, tell us and update the description in the store accordingly.

[Brumby]

Just a quick examination, but my thoughts so far....


This is certainly a good effort and I would encourage its further development.  It does seem to have been prepared by someone with an artistic air - and while that can produce aesthetically pleasing results, I feel it can introduce difficulties in what is a document for a working environment where you have to work past the "styling" to get to the facts.

I have to agree with the grey text being harder to read because of reduced contrast.  I would also say that the bulk of this text is also more difficult to read because it is of a fine line style.  When screen reading at text width scale on a FHD monitor, many lines forming the letters are only 1 pixel thick.  I printed a page on a monochrome laser printer and found the same reading difficulty.   Although I, personally, might like another point or two, the font size is acceptable - but the font colour needs to be black and the font line thickness needs to be greater.

The same can essentially be said about the pale blue headings.  They don't jump out the way I would like.  I tried changing the colour of this text to "EEVblog blue" and it was much better.  (I suggest another point or two on the font size would be good.)

I would also suggest an A5 page size.  If the document does get printed, then that is going to be a more portable size.  Also, on screen reading will naturally increase the physical size of the fonts on the monitor.

There are a couple of other comments - but I can see they are the sort of things you get with a work in progress.

[Dr. Frank]

From standpoint of standardization, it's not acceptable to have two different sources or owners of a document. Usually, the intellectual owner of the DMM should also be the owner / author of the document.
'Seppy' seems to represent that role, currently.

If he would hand over the full responsibility and also the latest source code of the document (vers. from 8th Feb. 2019), it would be ok.

The alternative document currently contains a lot of old errors, is partly incomplete, and is in a premature state.

So I decline this document, as nice it may look on the first few pages.

Frank

[bitwelder]

I like the new layout of the manual,
but at least reading it with the built-in PDF reader of Chrome and Firefox on my Linux workstation, one page that included several symbols got messed in rendering (see attachment).

[Brumby]

I got that same misalignment using Acrobat Reader DC.

That's one of the things I put down as a WIP issue.

[Octane]

From standpoint of standardization, it's not acceptable to have two different sources or owners of a document. Usually, the intellectual owner of the DMM should also be the owner / author of the document.
'Seppy' seems to represent that role, currently.

If he would hand over the full responsibility and also the latest source code of the document (vers. from 8th Feb. 2019), it would be ok.

So you are saying that manual writing cannot be outsourced? Or be done in collaboration?

The alternative document currently contains a lot of old errors, is partly incomplete, and is in a premature state.

Did you read the full post from EEVBlog? He stated that it is based on an older revision currently and that it is not finished. I assume if there are enough yays, and the design and readability issues are ironed out, that it will be updated to the latest revision and checked and corrected by EEVBlog and Seppy.

So I decline this document, as nice it may look on the first few pages.

You can keep using the original.

I for my part like the new document very much. Although I agree with many other comments about readability. Grey is suboptimal. The design overall get’s a big plus from me. A professional meter needs a professional looking manual, not one that look’s like it’s made in a copyshop.

BR,
Michael

[Andre Gulbis]

Hey guys, Andre here - the creator of the 121 Manual/PDF Dave posted.

TLDR Version
Did in Indesign & Illustrator last year over a few months when I got my 121, got busy so couldn't finish, forgot about - remembered today, on whim exported to PDF and sent to Dave - he posted it to this thread!
Thanks for feedback - I am at the communities mercy.  What I have done I consider owned by the EEVBlog community.
Didn't know other work was being done - silly of me not to check.
Slight interloper feelings.
Cheers & ill keep looking at this thread to see what you think.
Andre


Longer Version
Let me give you a little background to this silly incomplete version of the manual.

When I received delivery of my 121GW last year I, of course, wanted to take a look at the manual.
At that time it was the 24 Jan 2018.
Straight away I had a desire to re-do it so it could be as good as maybe a Keysight one.
OCD kicked in.

I didn't contact Dave, didn't look on the forum - I just started.  Bit silly in hindsight.

So the front pic looked like an older version of the meter from when UEI and Dave were refining the design.
So I re-drew it in Illustrator and did it "properly, properly" - used a caliper to measure all dimensions & fonts etc.
I have all that as separate layered Illustrator/vector files.

Then I went through the manual and noticed the descriptions of each position/range etc wasn't 100% consistent.
So if you look through my version properly you will notice it's not just a re-styled version of the 24 Jan version, it a bit re-structured.  The TOC gives you an idea of how its presents.

I tried to get the terms/language consistent  - the rotary switch has 'Positions', containing 1 or more 'Modes'.
And I thought that 'Range' was to be reserved for actual auto/manual change of a range within a mode...
Studied the Keysight/Aglient manuals for U12XXX series a bit, since Ive got one of those.
Anyways, added the Positions and Modes pages 29-31 as a complete overview.
Came up with some new graphics and layouts, like on pages 42, 43, 44.
Also updated the inline button artwork, and the text itself in pages like 50.

So I worked on it for a few months, then got swamped with work, and have been ever since.

I almost forgot about it(!) but used my 121 yesterday and I remembered.
So just on a whim I exported to PDF and sent to Dave.
He got back to me really quick and said that he'd put it on the forum!

As you can tell, much is not finished.
I didn't write it from top to bottom, but was jumping around, so random bits are not done.
And I never did get up to the end sections.

Those large overlapping vector graphics in the TOC I forgot to resize - has to manually be done.
Yeah the text colour is too arty-farty - should be darker.
A5 is no problem....

But it looks like I have thrown a spanner the the works as you guys have been working on another updated version.
And of course people have ownership/are invested in work.
So I am totally open to whatever you guys say.
I can just leave it, or hand it over to other people - make all the vectors available etc.
Or I can redo it to match what you've got, or do a combination of both.

There's also the Illustrator/Indesign thing - so even though that's "Industry Standard" etc it matters not if you guys aren't happy with the format.
Whatever I have done so far belongs to the EEVBlog community.
Feel like a bit of an interloper since I didn't have enough sense to first check the community, and this has kinda just been chucked in the square.

Sorry that was a bit long winded.
Cheers & ill keep reading the posts here to see what ya think.

Andre

[Dr. Frank]

From standpoint of standardization, it's not acceptable to have two different sources or owners of a document. Usually, the intellectual owner of the DMM should also be the owner / author of the document.
'Seppy' seems to represent that role, currently.

If he would hand over the full responsibility and also the latest source code of the document (vers. from 8th Feb. 2019), it would be ok.

So you are saying that manual writing cannot be outsourced? Or be done in collaboration?

The alternative document currently contains a lot of old errors, is partly incomplete, and is in a premature state.

Did you read the full post from EEVBlog? He stated that it is based on an older revision currently and that it is not finished. I assume if there are enough yays, and the design and readability issues are ironed out, that it will be updated to the latest revision and checked and corrected by EEVBlog and Seppy.

So I decline this document, as nice it may look on the first few pages.

You can keep using the original.

I for my part like the new document very much. Although I agree with many other comments about readability. Grey is suboptimal. The design overall get’s a big plus from me. A professional meter needs a professional looking manual, not one that look’s like it’s made in a copyshop.

BR,
Michael

Well, I view the whole story from a professional standardization point of view, inside a big electronics company, so I simply dislike the obvious multiplicity of sources, and fear undirected documentation status.
There is really no indication, that the responsibility for this document should be handed over from Seppy to the alternative author, it's only speculation, what's going on... no sign of collabration, outsourcing, handing over, or whatever. A German saying is: 'Several cooks spoil the meal', and that also goes here..

If the author had the intention to seriously make a working copy, the status of the document could already have been much better; so I needed to emphasize on that retarded status from before about July 2018, (not October!!), despite Daves text, which I of course have read.

A nice design is one thing, but if the author is not able to deliver better content, my future expectations and my opinion about the document is settled, and that's what Dave also asked for.

Btw. the (future) Change Management should also be handled by one person, so I see further ambiguity.

[Andre Gulbis]

Yeah Dr.Frank I understand.  Accurate info and tracked doco status etc is more important than a fluffy design.
And it looks like you got that system setup for an updated version of the 121 manual already.

(I actually did a stint working for Standards Australia writing and updating Australian Standards - so Ive been well into that. - Back then it was Word 97(?) track changes/templates/macros and Styles mapped to XML with XSTL.)

Dr.F. I am sorry it wasn't prepped and presented better to you guys - it was out of left-field with no introduction or solid grounding, and you knew nothing of me or my intentions.
I didn't know Dave would just throw it straight up on the forum!  But I understand fully why he did.
But that's my fault for being so casual about it and not knowing that others are invested in an updated manual.

So that's where it's at.
Cheers Dr.Frank and I guess we'll see what other say.


PS
I shall indulge in just a little self-defence.
The only part of your last comment I would refute is "not delivering better content".
I'm not sure how much of the PDF you have looked at, but much is new and updated/restructured.
The first pages are more of a face-lift, but the other sections I worked on for some months, working on terms, consistency, readability, cross-references and of course highly accurate artwork.
It's definitely not just a re-style of the original manual.
Cheers mate!

[bicycleguy]

A user wrote a new version of the manual which looks much more professional:
...Feedback welcome.

6 for original 1/2 dozen for new.  I don't mind who does the manual but really like'd that errors and short comings could be posted in the issues thread and were responded to and incorporated where useful.  Not sure why some of this guys ideas weren't just incorporated but can see why the feedback request.

I see nothing wrong with having more help on the manual as long as all input is reasonably considered as it has been in the past.

[jancumps]

This is a supporting manual, not a spec or design doc.

[Brumby]

I feel Dr. Frank's criticisms, while valid, are a bit harsh.

 * The dated origins of the work so far has been explained.
 * The immature state of what has been presented is nothing more than it being a work in progress.  There is a lot of work required to produce this sort of documentation and there is wisdom in offering a sample before uncountable hours are invested in a product that will be rejected - or where recommended changes could mean massive re-work.
 * From what I have read, control of the document is a matter that is up for discussion.

The first two will be addressed in due course, assuming the "go-ahead" is given and defining the means for control of the document isn't an exercise in astrophysics.

If Andre Gulbis wants to continue with his efforts, then there is only one risk - and that is the risk of his efforts being passed by.  If he is OK with that, then I don't see why he can't keep going, if he wants to.

I know I've thrown some ideas for graphics up on this forum - and it has always been on the basis of accepting whatever fate befalls it.  Whether others feel it uninteresting, laughable, liked or adopted for international distribution - I am OK with any of it.