Author Topic: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread  (Read 195642 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online jancumps

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Country: be
  • New Low
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1375 on: February 09, 2019, 09:40:41 am »
This is a supporting manual, not a spec or design doc.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 8954
  • Country: au
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1376 on: February 09, 2019, 10:36:42 am »
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.
 

Offline beanflying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3219
  • Country: au
  • Toys so very many Toys.
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1377 on: February 09, 2019, 10:50:18 am »
One of the realities of manuals in a modern environment is those that come from online sources how many ever get printed out?

Making the manual screen/computer compatible is in some ways more important than printed layout IMO. If I was to print manuals for the Test gear I have it would likely run to well over 1000 pages so unless it came with a manual I am unlikely to print them out much as I have a preference for printed manuals.

While that may seem contradictory to please the majority it needs to be considered when arriving at a layout and page sizing.
Coffee, Food, R/C and electronics nerd in no particular order :)
 
The following users thanked this post: genghisnico13

Offline Andre Gulbis

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
  • Country: au
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1378 on: February 09, 2019, 09:49:03 pm »
Hey beanflying yeah I forgot to mention that.

Since it's in Indesign, and completely structured with a hierarchy of styles (It kinda has to be so you can produce the TOCs), you can map those styles to XML tags - and just export to XML/HTML or whatever you want - then just do CSS do XSL/XSTL etc.

I've done that before with other documents a client wanted online - so you get the nice printed version, and at the press of a button you get the fully published XML/HTML version.

So that option is there as well - I can do a demo with the incomplete version if you want.

Of course if you have it in MS Word there are third party products that can map Word Styles >> Intermediate Tag Map >> XML Tag Map.   Ive that before as well, and automatically with Tomcat on a server!  There was some free French authored Java app years ago that did it...

Anyways - yes that can be done.
Cheers!

Andre
 
The following users thanked this post: newbrain, beanflying

Online joeqsmith

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5472
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1379 on: February 11, 2019, 04:54:52 am »
KainkaLabs released a few videos showing the 121GW.  While he mentions they are not a review, he does go into a more details than most.   

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd8CdLp2bKP6Uv0jvdLdiRA
How electrically robust is your meter?? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsK99WXk9VhcghnAauTBsbg
 
The following users thanked this post: genghisnico13, Marco1971

Online joeqsmith

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5472
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1380 on: February 11, 2019, 05:22:52 am »
Looked over the new manual.  I personally like the format.  After watching KainkaLabs Part 3 and reading the manual, I was reminded of a problem I came across when I looked at the prototype 121GW when measuring VA.  Those who caught that video may remember Dave suggesting that I had the meter incorrectly connected.  You may also remember I had been trying to see if the meter handled the burden voltage correctly which it seems like it was not included in the calculation.  Because KainkaLabs is the first person I have seen run this demo, I have asked them to repeat their test, changing the configuration as shown.   

Quote
KainkaLabs  If you make another video, it would be good to see you rerun the VA test as well. When I looked at the prototype meter, there was a problem when using this mode. I think your are the first person to demo it. Basically, how you have connected it is what they show in the manual. However, when I looked at it, it seemed that the firmware did not account for the burden voltage. To get around this, I placed the meter's common point to the low side of the load, Vin to the other side of the load and the current back to the supply. Basically removing the burden from the voltage calculation. After I did this, the numbers would come out correctly. I will post a picture on to the main page I linked if you are not understanding.
How electrically robust is your meter?? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsK99WXk9VhcghnAauTBsbg
 

Online joeqsmith

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5472
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1381 on: February 11, 2019, 05:32:03 am »
Shown connected with the meters current in the source side of the load.  Again, the meter reading the voltage across the load without the effects of the burden. 
How electrically robust is your meter?? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsK99WXk9VhcghnAauTBsbg
 

Offline joearkay

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Engineer
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1382 on: February 13, 2019, 08:46:55 pm »
Beginner question - I've been looking at the current measurement specs of the 121GW. The smallest DC A range is stated as 50uA^5.


What does this notation represent? I'm used to both engineering and scientific notation, but this stumped me a little. Does it literally mean 50^5uA = 312500000? I've never 'deep dived' into DMO specs before so it may be a common practise that I just haven't seen before. Thanks.
 

Offline ascomm

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 15
  • Country: fi
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1383 on: February 13, 2019, 09:27:29 pm »
Is it by design that the resistance measurement in auto range is quite slow?
At times it is pretty annoying to wait for the read out.
 

Online exe

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1191
  • Country: nl
  • self-educated hobbyist
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1384 on: February 14, 2019, 01:41:30 am »
Could someone please share calibration data? I lost it while messing up with the meter and not all ranges I can calibrate (like I don't have a high-voltage source for AC, for example). I know results won't be perfect, but it's fine :)
 

Offline Octane

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1385 on: February 14, 2019, 01:54:46 am »
Hi joearkay,

Isn’t the ^5 a footnote? I didn’t check. Just an idea.

BR,
Michael
 

Offline IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9449
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1386 on: February 14, 2019, 02:37:55 am »
Beginner question - I've been looking at the current measurement specs of the 121GW. The smallest DC A range is stated as 50uA^5.


What does this notation represent? I'm used to both engineering and scientific notation, but this stumped me a little. Does it literally mean 50^5uA = 312500000? I've never 'deep dived' into DMO specs before so it may be a common practise that I just haven't seen before. Thanks.

Isn’t the ^5 a footnote? I didn’t check. Just an idea.

Exactly.

Quote
DC A    50 µA5
...
5 This mode will use the x10 amplifier and may have additional offset error that should be REL’d out before measurement.

I'm not an EE--what am I doing here?
 

Online joeqsmith

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5472
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1387 on: February 20, 2019, 11:34:23 pm »
Looks like Rodger repeated the test I ran with the VA mode.  It's been almost two years since I posted the original video showing the problems and possible workarounds.  At the time it caused a lot of confusion.   Even Dave seemed lost and when the guy selling the product and testing the prototypes is not following, you have a problem.   Maybe Rodger's testing will be presented in such a way that will be easier to understand. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd8CdLp2bKP6Uv0jvdLdiRA
How electrically robust is your meter?? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsK99WXk9VhcghnAauTBsbg
 
The following users thanked this post: beanflying

Offline GeoffreyF

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 233
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1388 on: February 21, 2019, 12:55:47 am »
Is it by design that the resistance measurement in auto range is quite slow?
At times it is pretty annoying to wait for the read out.

In this or any other meter, I don't use auto range unless I have absolutely no idea what range the expected value is in.   I set the range to what my expectations are.  If it goes out of range, I revert to auto range.   If one is debugging something - there is not such a thing as autorange that is fast enough though some are faster than others.  ALSO - if you are measuring without a really good contact on what you are testing (this is what the sharp plated probes are for) OR there are charges in capacitors or the circuit is energized in some way, then it could autorange forever because the circuit is changing.   That's why oscilloscopes are useful.   Keep in mind that for any number of reasons, the meter might be seeing different values from moment to moment.



US Amateur Extra W1GCF.
 

Online CDaniel

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 152
  • Country: ro
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1389 on: February 21, 2019, 02:11:28 am »
Please stop defending this slow firmware , everybody ( including Dave ) knows that it must be improved .
People don't buy a pretty expensive meter to use it in manual range ... this is a bad joke  :-DD . You can use it as you want but keep your precious advices for yourself .
 

Online joeqsmith

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5472
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1390 on: February 21, 2019, 03:30:44 am »
Please stop defending this slow firmware , everybody ( including Dave ) knows that it must be improved .
People don't buy a pretty expensive meter to use it in manual range ... this is a bad joke  :-DD . You can use it as you want but keep your precious advices for yourself .

You havn't been around for a while.  Now that you have returned, perhaps check out my post #1344 along with others.  We did a fair amount of testing to try and find a meter that behaves as you implied they all do.   Perhaps I misunderstood your original post or you have no clue what you are posting about.   Please take the time to explain your original post. 

« Last Edit: February 21, 2019, 04:35:21 am by joeqsmith »
How electrically robust is your meter?? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsK99WXk9VhcghnAauTBsbg
 

Online gnavigator1007

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1391 on: February 21, 2019, 05:38:58 am »
Looks like Rodger repeated the test I ran with the VA mode.  It's been almost two years since I posted the original video showing the problems and possible workarounds.  At the time it caused a lot of confusion.   Even Dave seemed lost and when the guy selling the product and testing the prototypes is not following, you have a problem.   Maybe Rodger's testing will be presented in such a way that will be easier to understand. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd8CdLp2bKP6Uv0jvdLdiRA

Video is up
https://youtu.be/FNsPr1OEq7c
 
The following users thanked this post: jancumps, exe, peteb2, genghisnico13, beanflying, Marco1971

Offline HKJ

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 802
  • Country: dk
    • Tests
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1392 on: February 21, 2019, 06:34:31 am »
I think this is a bit silly discussion. Of course the meter would have the common input as voltage reference and you have to decide if you want to measure power from the supply or power delivered to the load and connect accordingly.
 
The following users thanked this post: bilgewater

Offline beanflying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3219
  • Country: au
  • Toys so very many Toys.
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1393 on: February 21, 2019, 06:41:33 am »
Please stop defending this slow firmware , everybody ( including Dave ) knows that it must be improved .
People don't buy a pretty expensive meter to use it in manual range ... this is a bad joke  :-DD . You can use it as you want but keep your precious advices for yourself .

Wow we all just got just so burned by you throwing that Iced Soy 1/2 shot decaff Latte at us :-DD
Coffee, Food, R/C and electronics nerd in no particular order :)
 

Offline chronos42

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Country: de
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1394 on: February 21, 2019, 07:19:17 am »

Wow we all just got just so burned by you throwing that Iced Soy 1/2 shot decaff Latte at us :-DD

But he is right in this point. There is also no actual progress in the 1.58 beta firmware, Ohm measurements are still a pain with this meter.
 

Offline beanflying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3219
  • Country: au
  • Toys so very many Toys.
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1395 on: February 21, 2019, 07:22:04 am »

Wow we all just got just so burned by you throwing that Iced Soy 1/2 shot decaff Latte at us :-DD

But he is right in this point. There is also no actual progress in the 1.58 beta firmware, Ohm measurements are still a pain with this meter.

Not everything can be fixed by firmware!
Coffee, Food, R/C and electronics nerd in no particular order :)
 

Offline GeoffreyF

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 233
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1396 on: February 21, 2019, 02:34:53 pm »
Please stop defending this slow firmware , everybody ( including Dave ) knows that it must be improved .
People don't buy a pretty expensive meter to use it in manual range ... this is a bad joke  :-DD . You can use it as you want but keep your precious advices for yourself .

Here is an idea - please stop going on and on making the same point over and over and over - without anything actually useful.   If you stop why would anyone respond to your junk if you are not writing it?  Everybody does not know it must be improved - so don't write what actually is false.   It's not "pretty expensive". It's actually about average.   It's not a bad joke - your posts are.   Practice What you preach except your "advices" are not precious, useful or wanted - so keep them to yourself.
US Amateur Extra W1GCF.
 

Offline J-R

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 15
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1397 on: February 21, 2019, 04:53:06 pm »
Is it by design that the resistance measurement in auto range is quite slow?
At times it is pretty annoying to wait for the read out.

In this or any other meter, I don't use auto range unless I have absolutely no idea what range the expected value is in.   I set the range to what my expectations are.  If it goes out of range, I revert to auto range.   If one is debugging something - there is not such a thing as autorange that is fast enough though some are faster than others.  ALSO - if you are measuring without a really good contact on what you are testing (this is what the sharp plated probes are for) OR there are charges in capacitors or the circuit is energized in some way, then it could autorange forever because the circuit is changing.   That's why oscilloscopes are useful.   Keep in mind that for any number of reasons, the meter might be seeing different values from moment to moment.

So you're saying if you had a meter that could auto range nearly instantly, you still wouldn't use it that way?  I find that hard to believe.  It's going to be slower to have to constantly cycle through the ranges especially if there is only one button to do so.

You state that the meter could see different values.  Isn't that the entire point of having the auto range feature?  It seems like you are hurting your argument.  Auto ranging was a great advancement along with DMMs.


Please stop defending this slow firmware , everybody ( including Dave ) knows that it must be improved .
People don't buy a pretty expensive meter to use it in manual range ... this is a bad joke  :-DD . You can use it as you want but keep your precious advices for yourself .

Here is an idea - please stop going on and on making the same point over and over and over - without anything actually useful.   If you stop why would anyone respond to your junk if you are not writing it?  Everybody does not know it must be improved - so don't write what actually is false.   It's not "pretty expensive". It's actually about average.   It's not a bad joke - your posts are.   Practice What you preach except your "advices" are not precious, useful or wanted - so keep them to yourself.

I don't condone his constant pointing out of the slowness either, because we can watch any number of Youtube videos and see some other meters that are "slow" as well.  But when you suggest that we use manual ranges as a fix I can see why it would get a reaction.   I just ran a test in manual range of a 6800uF capacitor and the 121GW takes 9 seconds to display the value, the ESR70 was 5.5 seconds, the BM235 was 5 seconds and a capacitance meter my grandfather (rest in peace) designed and built from scratch 30 years ago can do it in under 1.5 seconds, and that includes powering it on.

I'm going to assume that after all this time if the speed of the 121GW could be drastically improved, they would have done it already.  There are hints of this being the case in some other forum posts I found.  Maybe someone could make an official statement and clear the air...
 

Offline IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9449
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1398 on: February 21, 2019, 05:10:29 pm »
I'm going to assume that after all this time if the speed of the 121GW could be drastically improved, they would have done it already.  There are hints of this being the case in some other forum posts I found.  Maybe someone could make an official statement and clear the air...

I have a problem that when attempts were made to speed up the resistance range the auto-ranging become less reliable. Therefore if fast and reliable is not to be achieved, I prefer slow and reliable over fast and unreliable.

I would rather the developers ignore the shouts of "Faster! Faster!" and try to make the thing actually work...
I'm not an EE--what am I doing here?
 

Offline J-R

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 15
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1399 on: February 21, 2019, 05:15:44 pm »
I'm going to assume that after all this time if the speed of the 121GW could be drastically improved, they would have done it already.  There are hints of this being the case in some other forum posts I found.  Maybe someone could make an official statement and clear the air...

I have a problem that when attempts were made to speed up the resistance range the auto-ranging become less reliable. Therefore if fast and reliable is not to be achieved, I prefer slow and reliable over fast and unreliable.

I would rather the developers ignore the shouts of "Faster! Faster!" and try to make the thing actually work...

The ideal solution would be to have an option for the end user to make the choice himself if those goals are mutually exclusive.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf