Fluke 15B vs 115

[aluminumfoilteslacoil]

So from what I can tell, they're both Chinese-made Flukes with 3yr warranties, but the 15B has more features and is cheaper. The only real notable difference I see is the 115 is labeled as TRMS, but that's just a basic math calculation, not like it costs any more to implement. So why does the 115 cost more when the 15B has more features?

I feel like Fluke has too many products, and it hurts my head.

[BeBuLamar]

TRMS does cost more to make. Today the prices between TRMS and just RMS are not much different but in the old days it's a big thing. Also the price difference reflect 2 different lines of products. The 115 is made in Malaysia.

[aluminumfoilteslacoil]

TRMS does cost more to make. Today the prices between TRMS and just RMS are not much different but in the old days it's a big thing. Also the price difference reflect 2 different lines of products. The 115 is made in Malaysia.

Thanks for the reply. I was trying to gauge which might be the better value for a electronic hobbyist. The main pull of the 15B I think would be the mA setting. But I'm curious how much that would practically matter for a hobbyist, seeing as mA can still be measured on the 115 with a bit more error. The 115 DCA setting says 1% + 3 digits for error (with .001 resolution), so if you were measuring a 100mA circuit on the 115, then you should get a measurement between 96mA and 104mA. I think for hobby purposes, that's plenty accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[BeBuLamar]

I do not see the 115 being less features than the 15B. I think it has more but not much.

[TimFox]

In AC voltmeters, non-TRMS meters normally measure “mean absolute value”, which is relatively cheap to implement, and convert that to the RMS value of a sine wave with that “average” value (“average responding”).
This is reasonable for a sinusoid with low distortion, but gives inaccurate values for a square wave.
One problem with TRMS converters is that they often don’t work well at very low levels (compared with full scale), so an average-responding meter might be better when adjusting a device for a null (zero) voltage.

[Fungus]

It's just Fluke Marketing.

The 15B was designed to be exclusive to Asia where people have less money.

They could sell the 115 (and every other "US" meter) for much less, but they don't. Not in corporate America.

They're in business to make money.

[Caliaxy]

TRMS does cost more to make. Today the prices between TRMS and just RMS are not much different but in the old days it's a big thing. Also the price difference reflect 2 different lines of products. The 115 is made in Malaysia.

Thanks for the reply. I was trying to gauge which might be the better value for a electronic hobbyist. The main pull of the 15B I think would be the mA setting. But I'm curious how much that would practically matter for a hobbyist, seeing as mA can still be measured on the 115 with a bit more error. The 115 DCA setting says 1% + 3 digits for error (with .001 resolution), so if you were measuring a 100mA circuit on the 115, then you should get a measurement between 96mA and 104mA. I think for hobby purposes, that's plenty accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not wrong. The problem with the current measurements in 115 is not that much the precision (that's OK), but the missing ranges. If you need to measure, say, 3mA, you are in the margin of error on the lowest 6.000A range (the meter can display anything between -0.003 and +0.003 with no current at all...). Not to mention the nonexistent sub-mA ranges...

The 110-117 series is intended for electricians and very specific jobs. Each model in that series is missing something that other model has. Want to do general repairs around the house? 115 is great, until your stove or freezer go south, because you can't measure temperatures. You need 116 for that, but that come with no current capabilities (beside the uA range to measure the flame sensor current - that model is targeted to HVAC technicians). 117 gives you back the Amps capability and throw in no-contact contact voltage detection but takes back the temperature and the uA range. There is no such a thing as a "fully featured" model in that series. It's a great meter though, smaller than 15B+, fits nicely in one hand, you can operate the rotary dial with the same hand you hold it. Seems nicer built than 15B+, but that might be just an impression. Has a bar graph the 15B+ series is missing, which updates at a higher rate (10x or so) than the numerical display - great for signalling fast changes the display can't keep up with. Also, 117 has a min/max/average function 15B+ is missing.

The 15B+ series seems more appropriate for all-around work (including electronics) to me (17B+/18B+ are more featured - include a relative mode and temperature/LED testing, respectively).

I have access to 116 and 15B+, 17B+ and 18B+, in case you have specific questions.

[krish2487]

A little tangential to the topic...
but here is a video of dave converting a non true rms fluke multimeter to true rms


I m betting that this would be the case for similar models even in asia...
Granted one does need to recalibrate the multimeter after the mod but I suspect that the segregation is entirely artificial and that the hardware has the feature set already..
(Unless of course, the hardware in question 15B is specifically designed ground up to be a average sensing multimeter and not "borrowed" design from a existing true rms model..

[Fungus]

There is no such a thing as a "fully featured" model in that series.

Yep, it's marketing crap to make sure none of them compete with the sacred 87V.

The 15B+ series seems more appropriate for all-around work (including electronics) to me (17B+/18B+ are more featured - include a relative mode and temperature/LED testing, respectively).

The 17B/18B models are much more complete than the 15B but their price tags put them into Brymen territory and Brymen will sell you a far better meter at that price (eg. with bar graph, etc.)

There's nothing wrong with the Flukes ,per. se., but you're paying a premium for the yellow color.

[TimNJ]

Dead set on a Fluke?

If I were to buy a new meter at this price point, living in the US, I'd probably buy a Brymen BM867s via TME. Better accuracy compared to the "0.5% class" 115 and 15B. Good build quality. Lots of threads about Brymen here; you may have already seen.

I have an Amprobe Brymen rebrand at home (AM-270) and another Amprobe Brymen rebrand at work (AM-160-A), and I think they are great meters. Those particular Amprobe meters were discontinued for some reason. Actually they discontinued most of their contemporary multimeter offerings, and now they only list their sort of crappy legacy products. Strange.

[BeBuLamar]

I have a good number of Fluke's but if I were to buy a meter I am not sure I would buy a Fluke. My first Fluke was the 87 (first generation) and I think I paid $200 for it. The second one I bought was the 189 in 2004 but because Fluke said they couldn't fix my 87 any more and offer $100 for it so I took it. I bought the 114 in 2009 because I didn't want to bring my 189 to work and make it all dirty. I only paid $100 for it and it came with an IR thermometer free. I paid $25 for the 8050a used and $150 for 45 used. I have the 87V, 287, 289 and 374FC but I didn't have to paid for them.

[GigaJoe]

to gauge which might be the better value for a electronic hobbyist.

I'm think none of them listed ...  for $100+ it primitive overpriced yellow box.
on amazon - BM235 ;  better and more money BM786;

or what i like and use ( yes it compromise  , but  portable ; 20,000 count DMM + scope + basic signal generator)
https://www.amazon.com/Oscilloscope-Multiumeter-Bandwidth-Automobile-Maintenance/dp/B09C1DZP9Z

[Fungus]

Thanks for the reply. I was trying to gauge which might be the better value for a electronic hobbyist. The main pull of the 15B I think would be the mA setting. But I'm curious how much that would practically matter for a hobbyist, seeing as mA can still be measured on the 115 with a bit more error. The 115 DCA setting says 1% + 3 digits for error (with .001 resolution), so if you were measuring a 100mA circuit on the 115, then you should get a measurement between 96mA and 104mA. I think for hobby purposes, that's plenty accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong.

For "hobbyist" you should get something with uA.

Many readings will be in the 1mA range and you'll probably want to measure standby currents for gadgets which will be much less than that.