Handheld meter robustness testing

[Fungus]

And above you say the 87V died at 1.5kV, but that's not on your spreadsheet?

Note that there's two Fluke 87s on the spreadsheet.

[floobydust]

joeqsmith, I'm curious about what kind of capacitance/series resistance is behind your transient generator?

I have used Teseq surge generators but man are they a fortune; over $26K USD plus CDN and yearly calibration was few more grand. Just super expensive, so I can see no companies spending this much on equipment for a single test.
I use lower (i.e. 12ohm vs 2ohm 61000-4-5) series resistance until I know the design has a chance.

[joeqsmith]

joeqsmith, I'm curious about what kind of capacitance/series resistance is behind your transient generator?

I have used Teseq surge generators but man are they a fortune; over $26K USD plus CDN and yearly calibration was few more grand. Just super expensive, so I can see no companies spending this much on equipment for a single test.
I use lower (i.e. 12ohm vs 2ohm 61000-4-5) series resistance until I know the design has a chance.

Sounds like you are confusing my tests with the IEC standards.  I recommend you read the FAQ or first few pages of the thread.     

[joeqsmith]

And above you say the 87V died at 1.5kV, but that's not on your spreadsheet?

Note that there's two Fluke 87s on the spreadsheet.

I've thought about putting the first round of testing on a separate page.  I can see how Dave and others could be confused.  Personally I like having it all on one page.

[floobydust]

Sounds like you are confusing my tests with the IEC standards.  I recommend you read the FAQ or first few pages of the thread.   

I read the first 500 or so posts, over 20 pages and did not get to your latest build of the transient generator. Did not find the FAQ.
Are you ok to share ballpark rise-times and what you use as a switch element for the HV.
Like to compare with how much energy for a multimeter to jump up like some do in the videos.

[joeqsmith]

I'm certainly not going to force anyone to wade through all the posts, watch the videos or read the FAQ.   

[floobydust]

I've made measurements in Cat. IV and Cat. III situations and I still have my hands, most people don't know the danger there.

This whole thread is very important because it flushes out the unsafe crap on the market. Going through the 70 pages is fine, I had a few questions but understand you do not wish to share information on the transient generator.

[Fungus]

This whole thread is very important because it flushes out the unsafe crap on the market.

No it doesn't. This thread deals with robustness, not safety.

eg. The Fluke 87V didn't do very well here but nobody would say it's an unsafe meter.

[floobydust]

This whole thread is very important because it flushes out the unsafe crap on the market.

No it doesn't. This thread deals with robustness, not safety.

eg. The Fluke 87V didn't do very well here but nobody would say it's an unsafe meter.

I wondered about the label "robustness" because (I think) these tests are revealing multimeter failures causing arc-flash events. With mains behind such an event, the energy is lethal.
As a multimeter "weakness", I see this as a huge safety issue. Officially, yes here we are not testing to a safety standard with a pass/fail number, and these tests are to be taken as "pure entertainment"... but the scenarios look close enough for me.

I'm measuring voltage on HV panel and it would be good to know the multimeter has some qualification to even be in that environment, never mind that my life/limb is at risk.

I think the thread has certainly flushed out meters with bogus overvoltage-withstand claims and substandard idiot protection where people could get hurt.

[Fungus]

I'm measuring voltage on HV panel and it would be good to know the multimeter has some qualification to even be in that environment, never mind that my life/limb is at risk.

I think the thread has certainly flushed out meters with bogus overvoltage-withstand claims and substandard idiot protection where people could get hurt.

If anybody was measuring HV with a DT830B before they found this thread then ... they likely weren't following any other safety procedures and Darwin'll get them anyway. 

[stj]

71pages and i dont think anybody mentioned the really important bit yet - the build quality of the supplied leads/probes

[mikeys]

I think it's been brought up somewhere as Joe has a video on that subject on his channel. I don't recall how detailed it is though.

[Fungus]

71pages and i dont think anybody mentioned the really important bit yet - the build quality of the supplied leads/probes

Sure it has.

It's probably easier to find on joe's youtube channel than in the middle of all this but it's there.

[Cliff Matthews]

2 lead testing episodes were done a year ago ( and ).
IMHO, it would be nice if the spreadsheet included a column with some kind of 10-point grading given to the leads/clips provided with each meter, since not everyone figures-in a set of Probe-Masters with a purchase.

Idea: Maybe 4 of the above mentioned points could relate to cable ampacity. I'd gladly donate $10 towards the purchase of a Flir to see 45 second heat video's inserted on supplied cables. AFAIK, that Labview controlled PSU could sweep 1-30 amps quick enough to avoid smoke and damage, but fast enough to see problems. These 45 sec segments Freaking guarantee you'll not find that anywhere else. But just an idea, it is..

[stj]

i'm more interested in the insulation than the current handling.
the last 2 sets of probes i binned had the outer insulation crack at the strain-relief.
reminding me of the importance of double-insulated cable!!

[Fungus]

i'm more interested in the insulation than the current handling.
the last 2 sets of probes i binned had the outer insulation crack at the strain-relief.

How exactly would you test that?

[stj]

flex it a bit and see how it feels, try to scrape it with blunt edges - like a pcb.
ultimately, cut into one to see how many layers of insulation it has, how much actual metal is inside, and what it is - copper, aluminium, copper-coated steel etc.

[joeqsmith]

71pages and i dont think anybody mentioned the really important bit yet - the build quality of the supplied leads/probes

May 2016, Page 36, Post 897 starts the discussion if you want to read through it.    We are up almost 80 pages which does take us outside of the Dick and Jane reading level.    

flex it a bit and see how it feels, try to scrape it with blunt edges - like a pcb.
ultimately, cut into one to see how many layers of insulation it has, how much actual metal is inside, and what it is - copper, aluminium, copper-coated steel etc.

I am not big on using feelings for a test criteria.  I also don't like tests that can't be reproduced.   Determining the materials is possible but nothing I could do at home and I doubt anyone would get much out of it anyway.  Like Fungus with the latching relays, you are certainly more than welcome to run your own test leads what ever way you see fit and post the results. 

[joeqsmith]

Safe meaning it has been certified to meet the IEC standards by a third party,  not that if you try and eat it, you may choke to death and therefore it's not safe.  There is a difference and why we have these standards.   But I understand your desire to troll.   This I just a bad place for it.

Point taken, but I'm sticking with the cautionary recommendation

Burial sites are stocked with many techs that may have appreciated such a 4 word 'heads up' about their decimated freshly Cal'D meter
that had all the Safety Certified confidence labels on it,
and the big price


This is my last comment and attendance at this post
I will delete the lot asap at earliest convenience

Somehow I doubt that it will be your last.  It's really not up to me to police the site, so your free to do as you wish.   And while these dead people you mention may indeed  appreciate your words of wisdom,  they may not.  We won't ever know.   What we can determine is if people who are still alieve appreciate your words of wisdom.  Time will tell.

[joeqsmith]

You can't always trust something that is stamped with a "UL" label, either because it may be faked.

What devices did you to having a fake UL mark?  With the on-line database, it's easy enough to check.   

http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.html?utm_source=ulcom&utm_medium=web&038;utm_campaign=database

[joeqsmith]

Some time ago a friend had sent me some pictures which included their Fluke 189.  You can tell the meter was not used for high voltage high energy work.  When member EVAVA had posted about a  problem with the Brymen meters giving false readings:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/brymen-multimeters-fault/

I had asked my friend if I could borrow this meter to check it.  Well, they showed up with it this week!   They are aware of the testing I have been running and of course I promised no harm would come to their meter but I did warn them that it may come apart for a good cleaning and checkout.  I think this one has some sentimental value.   

For it's age, IMO this is a really nice general purpose meter.  I would take it over the 289 if it were still offered.  Fluke 87V, the gold standard, HA!  This was by far a better meter IMO.   

Would like to have found a new lens for it.  It's in pretty rough shape with scratches and chemical etching.  The battle scars give it character.  Some pictures showing my checkout.

Also, for what ever reason, I have been unable to get this meter to give false readings like I have seen with so many of them (basically all of them except my oldest HP bench meter).   If anyone owns the original 189, I wonder it you could confirm this. 

And no I did not spray it down with WD-40 or Windex!

[deflicted]

For it's age, IMO this is a really nice general purpose meter.  I would take it over the 289 if it were still offered.  Fluke 87V, the gold standard, HA!  This was by far a better meter IMO.

I had the same thought recently while looking up the 189 in the multimeter spreadsheet. Someone near me has one for sale, and it's killing me that I don't have the $$$ for it, because it looks like a way better deal than a used 87V. Then again, I've already got a Brymen 257s, and even though that's a couple tiers down from either of the Flukes, it's still way more than I have any foreseeable need for.

[alm]

For it's age, IMO this is a really nice general purpose meter.  I would take it over the 289 if it were still offered.  Fluke 87V, the gold standard, HA!  This was by far a better meter IMO.   

Agreed. In my opinion the only advantage of the 87 V is the smaller size and battery life (but it is AA, so you can just use low self discharge rechargeables). But the 87-series (the 87 IV aka 187 was not really part of that) is much older and the 189 was replaced by the very different (and more fiddly) 189-II/289 within ~10 years of being released. I also believe the 189 was more expensive than the 87 III. So much less will have been sold. Plus Dave never reviewed one or used one in his videos .

[IanB]

It always puzzles me why Fluke replaced the elegant and straightforward 189 with the inferior and overly complicated 289.

I can only assume they feared that sales of the 189 would eat into sales of the 289. Sorry Fluke, it doesn't work that way. I would buy a 189 like a shot if you offered it, but I will never buy a 289.

[alm]

The 189 was discontinued because a part was discontinued. I do not know which part, but it took a while for the 189-II (289) to appear, so I imagine it required a substantial redesign. Why they radically changed the user interface I do not know. I guess they thought that the trend plotting would be a major feature.