Author Topic: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread  (Read 201418 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29214
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1450 on: May 10, 2019, 04:03:16 pm »
Now, it seems that the "soufflé est retombé" as we say in French. I would like to be proven the opposite, but except a few apparitions of the multi-meter in some videos, enthusiasm seems to be gone, upgrades are no longer available, no more reaction from any Dave.

What "enthusiasm" do you want?
Want me to include an outro in every video plugging the meter?
It's just a meter, there was some excitement because it was a kickstarter, but now it's a year and half later and it's now just another product in my store. That was inevitable.
Fixes are still coming. I'm using 2.00 firmware at present and UEI have said we can release it, so expect it soon. Improvements are better and faster resistance and capacitance autoranging.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 06:06:59 pm by EEVblog »
 
The following users thanked this post: jancumps, Kean, Cliff Matthews, newbrain, Andrew McNamara, Marco1971, Roelof

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29214
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1451 on: May 10, 2019, 04:09:19 pm »
After Dave's comments about reviving the toggle bot to repeat the switch life cycle testing, I offered to buy a couple of the new meters and run that test for them but no response and I have not heard anything else.

If I had a spare new thicker PCB meter to send you, I would.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9056
  • Country: au
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1452 on: May 10, 2019, 05:52:44 pm »
I guess you'll finally be buying one these then Brumby!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps not? As you seem to know all Dave's intentions for this meter, both present and future, if you resist this bargain 20% off deal then maybe your holding off for a revised model?

Gee - you like riding me, don't you?

As for "knowing Dave's intentions", there's nothing I have said that anyone could not deduce - but because there are a lot of people who don't make that effort, I'll do it for them - you included, it seems.

As for my purchasing the 121GW or not, that has nothing to do with revisions.  It has everything to do with 2 quite specific reasons.  The first is that I do not have a specific need for the functions the 121GW offers.  My EEVblog BM235 and the other meters I have currently serve me more than well enough.  The second is that I do not have sufficient funds for such a discretionary purchase at this time.  However, should I find myself with such funds available, then I will go shopping.


There is one thing that should be understood .... I've been following the development of the 121GW from the moment Dave gave the first hints of such a project.  Excuse me if I've picked up a few details and have an opinion on some things.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9056
  • Country: au
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1453 on: May 10, 2019, 06:03:03 pm »
My guess is that Dave has stock on his shelves that needs to be turned into cash.  Stock on the shelf doesn't do anything but tie up capital.  It needs to be sold and new stock ordered for any business to survive.

Correct. I talked about this on the Amp hour the other month. I have to buy a lot of meters in one hit, and it's a huge amount of money, the last lot (plus other things) practically wiped out the companies cash reserve. So much so that I had to stop paying myself wages.

Not surprising to anyone with half an idea of how small business is challenged on a daily basis.  I don't have any secret communications, just common sense (sometimes  :D ).
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29214
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1454 on: May 10, 2019, 06:09:14 pm »
Not surprising to anyone with half an idea of how small business is challenged on a daily basis.  I don't have any secret communications, just common sense (sometimes  :D ).

Or people could just listen to The Amp Hour  ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: Andrew McNamara

Offline ggchab

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Country: be
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1455 on: May 10, 2019, 06:45:53 pm »
It's just a meter, there was some excitement because it was a kickstarter, but now it's a year and half later and it's now just another product in my store. That was inevitable.

To be totally honest, I would add "and because it was Dave's meter"  ;)
Thank you for the clarification. I was hoping this would take more time but I understand.

A simple message like
Quote
I'm using 2.00 firmware at present and UEI have said we can release it, so expect it soon."
is good news  :)
 

Offline thinkfat

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 131
  • Country: de
    • Matthias' Hackerstübchen
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1456 on: May 10, 2019, 07:15:48 pm »
I'm using the 1.54 software version, no problems with it. If 2.00 improves it even further - that will be brilliant!
 
The following users thanked this post: Marco1971

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9056
  • Country: au
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1457 on: May 10, 2019, 07:22:21 pm »
Fixes are still coming. I'm using 2.00 firmware at present and UEI have said we can release it, so expect it soon. Improvements are better and faster resistance and capacitance autoranging.

Well, that explains why there was no comment about the V1.61 FW some people had encountered.  No need to waste time with that when the new release was imminent.  (We just have an alert user base that picked up on that a week or two too early.)
 

Offline oliv3r

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: nl
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1458 on: May 11, 2019, 06:15:03 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 :)

Check your PM for:
$ md5sum CAL.BIN
ca2b85fe5be9863f3b96db3cc925d419  /media/oliver/121GW/CAL.BIN

Since I can PM files, I'm sure you don't mind that it's base64 encoded :)
 
The following users thanked this post: exe

Offline joeqsmith

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5548
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1459 on: May 11, 2019, 10:24:53 am »
After Dave's comments about reviving the toggle bot to repeat the switch life cycle testing, I offered to buy a couple of the new meters and run that test for them but no response and I have not heard anything else.

If I had a spare new thicker PCB meter to send you, I would.
I'm in no rush.   

Not surprising to anyone with half an idea of how small business is challenged on a daily basis.  I don't have any secret communications, just common sense (sometimes  :D ).

Or people could just listen to The Amp Hour  ;D

If you pay attention, there are normally a few gold nuggets in those shows. 
How electrically robust is your meter?? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsK99WXk9VhcghnAauTBsbg
 

Offline rthorntn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • Country: au
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1460 on: May 13, 2019, 08:28:28 pm »
Does anyone have any idea on how to source replacement probes?
 

Offline jancumps

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1187
  • Country: be
  • New Low
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1461 on: May 13, 2019, 08:33:46 pm »
Does anyone have any idea on how to source replacement probes?

This is the model: Silicone test leads BL21S2-T4SC Brymen
 
The following users thanked this post: rthorntn

Offline J-R

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 17
  • Country: us
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1462 on: May 15, 2019, 03:16:04 am »
Now, it seems that the "soufflé est retombé" as we say in French. I would like to be proven the opposite, but except a few apparitions of the multi-meter in some videos, enthusiasm seems to be gone, upgrades are no longer available, no more reaction from any Dave.

What "enthusiasm" do you want?
Want me to include an outro in every video plugging the meter?
It's just a meter, there was some excitement because it was a kickstarter, but now it's a year and half later and it's now just another product in my store. That was inevitable.
Fixes are still coming. I'm using 2.00 firmware at present and UEI have said we can release it, so expect it soon. Improvements are better and faster resistance and capacitance autoranging.

That's the biggest announcement about the 121GW I've heard since I bought it a year ago.  I'm enthusiastic about getting my hands on the new firmware.
 

Offline BrianG61UK

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 48
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1463 on: May 15, 2019, 03:25:45 am »
I just received my 121GW.

I don't understand the reasoning behind "Low Z".

Having an optional internal load on a voltage range makes sense, but why fixed on a high voltage range and not auto ranging? And why AC only?

I just don't get it.
 
The following users thanked this post: genghisnico13

Offline 0xdeadbeef

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1292
  • Country: de
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1464 on: May 15, 2019, 03:31:21 am »
"Low Z"  is typically meant for "ghost voltage" on mains.
Trying is the first step towards failure - Homer J. Simpson
 
The following users thanked this post: Marco1971

Offline Cnoob

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1465 on: May 15, 2019, 03:40:44 am »
 

Offline BrianG61UK

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 48
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1466 on: May 15, 2019, 04:06:39 am »
"Low Z"  is typically meant for "ghost voltage" on mains.
But wouldn't it make sense to allow it to be used for other things like testing batteries?

In most high impedance "ghost" mains voltage cases isn't one more interested in measuring the current anyway (measure with a few kohm R in series so no chance you blow a fuse somewhere)?

In the low impedance case (eg two earths/grounds that have a voltage between them) you can just use normal voltage range.
 
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 07:45:44 am by BrianG61UK »
 

Offline 0xdeadbeef

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1292
  • Country: de
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1467 on: May 15, 2019, 09:10:14 am »
But wouldn't it make sense to allow it to be used for other things like testing batteries?
Theoretically yes, but the current would be still pretty low for a battery. E.g. the Fluke 117 has ~3kOhm resitance in LoZ mode, so a 1.5V cell would cause a current of 500µA. That's probably not enough to be useful for battery testing.


In most high impedance "ghost" mains voltage cases isn't one more interested in measuring the current anyway (measure with a few kohm R in series so no chance you blow a fuse somewhere)?
just use normal voltage range.
Ghost voltages are created by capacitive coupling (no current flowing). With the typical multi MOhm resistance, you can measure voltages like e.g. 75V that seem to be dangerous. When measuring in LoZ mode, the current over the e.g. 3kOhm resistor is enough for the ghost voltage to disappear.
Trying is the first step towards failure - Homer J. Simpson
 

Offline BrianG61UK

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 48
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1468 on: May 15, 2019, 09:46:21 am »
But wouldn't it make sense to allow it to be used for other things like testing batteries?
Theoretically yes, but the current would be still pretty low for a battery. E.g. the Fluke 117 has ~3kOhm resitance in LoZ mode, so a 1.5V cell would cause a current of 500µA. That's probably not enough to be useful for battery testing.


In most high impedance "ghost" mains voltage cases isn't one more interested in measuring the current anyway (measure with a few kohm R in series so no chance you blow a fuse somewhere)?
just use normal voltage range.
Ghost voltages are created by capacitive coupling (no current flowing). With the typical multi MOhm resistance, you can measure voltages like e.g. 75V that seem to be dangerous. When measuring in LoZ mode, the current over the e.g. 3kOhm resistor is enough for the ghost voltage to disappear.
You think that if you put AC across a capacitor no current flows?

I thought we were all engineers in here.


Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

Offline 0xdeadbeef

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1292
  • Country: de
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1469 on: May 15, 2019, 09:55:55 am »
You think that if you put AC across a capacitor no current flows?
Let's not start nitpicking. It's quite obvious that I intended to explain that ghost voltages are not caused by inductive coupling (i.e. through a current) but by capacitive coupling.

I thought we were all engineers in here.
I thought we were here to help each other, not to be smarty-pants.
Trying is the first step towards failure - Homer J. Simpson
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9056
  • Country: au
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1470 on: May 15, 2019, 01:21:32 pm »
You think that if you put AC across a capacitor no current flows?

You seem to be missing some basics here...

For the ghost voltage situation, putting a DMM with a 10M (or higher) input impedance across it is not going to load the voltage down a lot.  You could easily measure 100VAC which might prompt you to start chasing down a fault that simply does not exist.  The simple answer is to put an appropriate load across the measured points and then read off the voltage.  Know your load and know your voltage means you know your current.

What is of most interest here is not the actual current that flows but the voltage you read when the circuit is under this load.  Because the capacitance that allow these voltages to exist is so low, the loading provided by a meter with a Lo-Z range often drops the voltage measurements down to zero - or close to.  When this happens, your confidence that the circuit measured does not have dangerous power behind it rises dramatically.

Of course, if you still measure 100VAC (or whatever) on a Lo-Z range, then you do have something to chase down.



I thought we were all engineers in here.
This is not helpful.

Most of us here have, what I call, "engineering minds".  Some are qualified, some have experience, some have the drive and some, the ambition - but we all try and keep ourselves grounded in the way things work in the real world.  You seem to be resting on the pedant pedestal a tad.

So, let me ask you this question...
Say you measure 100VAC in the normal high impedance mode of a DMM - and then measure zero when you switch to the Lo-Z mode?  How much current is flowing?  Ohm's law gives a clear answer.

Of course, theoretically we know there must be some current flowing - but it's going to be one poofteenth of a gnat's wing - and as far as the real world is concerned, that is negligible (unless you're playing with atomic force microscopy or somesuch).

As a practical consideration, sometimes the theoretical needs to be properly understood - and put to one side.
 

Offline CDaniel

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Country: ro
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1471 on: May 15, 2019, 08:22:19 pm »
LoZ is for AC and DC . When "engineering minds" work in real world will find many situations when a voltage in a circuit looks OK with a tipical high impedance multimeter , but it's not actually , because there is a fault and the circuit is just capacitive coupled or there is some high resistance conductive dirt somewhere ... For this is LoZ .
For example in a car circuit , you should check with LoZ or a light bulb if the fuses are OK , if not , a blown fuse can leave some conductive traces and you would be fooled with a normal multimeter .
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 08:29:01 pm by CDaniel »
 

Offline BrianG61UK

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 48
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1472 on: May 15, 2019, 08:48:33 pm »
LoZ is for AC and DC . When "engineering minds" work in real world will find many situations when a voltage in a circuit looks OK with a tipical high impedance multimeter , but it's not actually , because there is a fault and the circuit is just capacitive coupled or there is some high resistance conductive dirt somewhere ... For this is LoZ .
For example in a car circuit , you should check with LoZ or a light bulb if the fuses are OK , if not , a blown fuse can leave some conductive traces and you would be fooled with a normal multimeter .

Yes.
So why is it AC only on the 121GW ?
 

Offline BrianG61UK

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 48
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1473 on: May 15, 2019, 08:55:59 pm »
You think that if you put AC across a capacitor no current flows?

You seem to be missing some basics here...

For the ghost voltage situation, putting a DMM with a 10M (or higher) input impedance across it is not going to load the voltage down a lot.  You could easily measure 100VAC which might prompt you to start chasing down a fault that simply does not exist.  The simple answer is to put an appropriate load across the measured points and then read off the voltage.  Know your load and know your voltage means you know your current.

What is of most interest here is not the actual current that flows but the voltage you read when the circuit is under this load.

Most interest? Why?  The rules and regulations about how much leakage is safe quote currents not voltages across some vaguely defined non linear load.
 

Offline HKJ

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 807
  • Country: dk
    • Tests
Re: EEVBlog 121GW Discussion thread
« Reply #1474 on: May 15, 2019, 09:16:14 pm »

So why is it AC only on the 121GW ?

Why do you believe it is AC only?
My 121GW have no problems showing DC voltage in LowZ mode.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf