Handheld meter robustness testing

[Neutrion]

So you are suggest to use a high pot tester across the meter with it set to the volts mode? 

I've seen a few people post videos (including Dave) using an insulation tester. 

There was a guy posting about using a stun gun to test meters.  I wrote them but they never responded.   

Another option would be to actually get a combo generator tied to the mains and a nice blast shield.

All fun ideas and if anyone starts a channel where they run the meters this way, I will watch.

What would be the most important difference with a mains voltage spike with lets say 3000V P-P with the same energy level that your generator creates, to a spike 3000V p-p with your generator?
Just because it is half wave? There are no half wave spikes on the AC line?

But to turn around the argumentation, if the effects of spikes on the mains are so different(same joule level), than your generator shoud simulate rather those, because those will most likely hit the meter.

But you see I am that kind of ignorant who is trying to get an expert oppinion even if seek a bit more detailed one

Edit: Or what you could mean the aftermath of the possible shorts with main condition? Because like bdunham7 says after any breakdown(or letting through spikes) the interpretation is up to the viewer.

[joeqsmith]

What would be the most important difference with a mains voltage spike with lets say 3000V P-P with the same energy level that your generator creates, to a spike 3000V p-p with your generator?

The short circuit current waveform will not be even remotely close to correct, the FWHH is twice what is called out, lack of a coupling network, lack of a way to synchronize it or change the phase, lack of polarity selection, lack of support for both 50/60 Hz, lack of ability to select the mains amplitude.   I think I would also like to run burst as well as surge.  There are also several other tests that would be performed.   

Just because it is half wave? There are no half wave spikes on the AC line?

But to turn around the argumentation, if the effects of spikes on the mains are so different(same joule level), than your generator shoud simulate rather those, because those will most likely hit the meter.

Where did you get the idea that they have the same energy levels?  You assume I am using these meters on the mains.  I've been pretty clear about that.   While there are standards in place for qualifying various devices for mains use,  this is not what I have been showing over the last few years.

But you see I am that kind of ignorant who is trying to get an expert oppinion even if seek a bit more detailed one

Edit: Or what you could mean the aftermath of the possible shorts with main condition? Because like bdunham7 says after any breakdown(or letting through spikes) the interpretation is up to the viewer.

Your opinion is that the waveforms I use to test the meters are adequate to test mains devices.  My opinion is that you're ignorant on AC mains testing.  Of course, you could start doing some research if it interests you and correct that deficiency but you will not find many details in this thread about it.

[floobydust]

What happens is the PTC is slow to heat up and increase in resistance, which over-stresses the diode-connected transistors too much and they fail. I think this is why Fluke and Brymen include the 1k surge-resistor.

[...] Some of the smaller PTCs are only rated for 500V.  Some meters have only a single PTC which if the low voltage clamp is active, will have well over 900V across them....  Maybe....  [...]

The chinese PTC's are really too cheap/small and I noticed rated 550WV and 1,000V max. at 1.1k ohms. Who knows what the "max rating". It's hard to find real 1,000V-rated PTC's with regulatory approvals.
Uni-T has used the MZ11-07M112M550 but I saw Russian UT-61's with even cheaper (smaller, no epoxy) version parts.

No mention of the details of modifications to the UT-61E+?  the clamp transistors "better" or "more expensive"? I'm not sure that is helpful.

[joeqsmith]

The surge rated resistors are at least designed for it and I would guess are part of the safety requirements. 

For a swag at 2kV peak, MOVs are say 1kV, so 2kV transient - 1kV MOVs leaves 1kV divided across the resistor and PTC.   If they were both 1kohms at DC, that's 500V each and a half mil peak current.  I suspect the thermal mass of the PTCs prevent it from responding to the transients I apply.  Seems I made a video on this when looking at the 87V. 

I don't think I have seen any PTCs without a coating being used in the handheld meters I have looked at. 

You are correct.  I have not, nor will I post any details about the parts I am using in the UT61E+.  I have heard it all before but you are certainly free to add your own twist.  That said, I really have no way to know if those parts improved it.  As I said, the stock meter may have performed just as well.  The only way to know would be to repeat it.

[floobydust]

I understand. Still disconcerting the UT61E+ LCD display flickering during the BBQ lighter tests, it might be an EMC issue. I hope the IC is not getting damaged.
One could look at the input current to a multimeter during an ohms-function overload, to see the PTC heat up and settle.

I looked at several Uni-T 61010 test reports and it seems they are capable of making something strong enough, but it must be cost. They save every penny.
chinese regulatory reports are notorious for checking "not applicable" and skipping entire suites of tests on products.
If you put a multimeter through 61010 approvals as a "3V device" basically like testing a flashlight lol. No need for 90% of the safety tests and at the end you can say it passed... as long as the User Manual says certain things forbidding use at hazardous voltages.

Thanks Dave for the Sanwa PM300 "Verification of Compliance", I had big doubts. The Japanese engineers I've worked with are baffled by people making mistakes and damaging test equipment. They can't imagine improper use, who could be so stupid. The meter should explode and kill the user, or just Harakiri afterwards.
But... oddly tested by SGS-CSTCT (china) so I've asked for more details. I don't trust the certs coming out of there.

[joeqsmith]

I understand. Still disconcerting the UT61E+ LCD display flickering during the BBQ lighter tests, it might be an EMC issue. I hope the IC is not getting damaged.
One could look at the input current to a multimeter during an ohms-function overload, to see the PTC heat up and settle.  ...

If I was applying DC then sure but the transients I apply have a fairly fast rise time with an exponential decay.  There's no settling until after it's all said and done.   As I previously wrote:

I suspect the thermal mass of the PTCs prevent it from responding to the transients I apply.

PTC_T1, showing a test board with a couple of 1k resistors in series with a 1k PTC.   For this test, the MOVs are shorted with a jumper.

PTC_T2, showing a close up.  The transient generator attached to one side of a 1k resistor.  Scope attached to the output of the generator and to the PTC. 

PTC_T3, showing the whole setup.   

Notice that the transient voltage (gold) is divided across the two resistors and the PTC, all being roughly 1k ohms.   Notice how the voltage across the PTC (pink) remains ratiometrically stable with the transients voltage.   Again, it's stable because there is just too much thermal mass for it to respond.   If the PTC's resistance were to change, you surely understand that we would no longer see this ratiometric divider?  Rather more and more voltage would be across the PTC.

I could turn up the generator (would require different probes) and we would continue to see the same profile.   

[Neutrion]

What would be the most important difference with a mains voltage spike with lets say 3000V P-P with the same energy level that your generator creates, to a spike 3000V p-p with your generator?

The short circuit current waveform will not be even remotely close to correct, the FWHH is twice what is called out, lack of a coupling network, lack of a way to synchronize it or change the phase, lack of polarity selection, lack of support for both 50/60 Hz, lack of ability to select the mains amplitude.   I think I would also like to run burst as well as surge.  There are also several other tests that would be performed.   

Just because it is half wave? There are no half wave spikes on the AC line?

But to turn around the argumentation, if the effects of spikes on the mains are so different(same joule level), than your generator shoud simulate rather those, because those will most likely hit the meter.

Where did you get the idea that they have the same energy levels?  You assume I am using these meters on the mains.  I've been pretty clear about that.   While there are standards in place for qualifying various devices for mains use,  this is not what I have been showing over the last few years.

But you see I am that kind of ignorant who is trying to get an expert oppinion even if seek a bit more detailed one

Edit: Or what you could mean the aftermath of the possible shorts with main condition? Because like bdunham7 says after any breakdown(or letting through spikes) the interpretation is up to the viewer.

Your opinion is that the waveforms I use to test the meters are adequate to test mains devices.  My opinion is that you're ignorant on AC mains testing.  Of course, you could start doing some research if it interests you and correct that deficiency but you will not find many details in this thread about it.

Thanks for the more detailed explanation, but if I am not completely wrong, we might talk about two different thing. (You talking about coupling network, 50/60 Hz)

What you are talking about is a simulation of a full sugre event on the mains line. So after the spike, and the clamping you still have the energy pumped in and causing damage, or at least effects.

But what I was talking about (and maybe bdunham7 also) is just the voltage spike itself without mains connected. And if the rise time is the same, the peak voltage is the same and the energy as well, than the short circuit current waveform during that small spike can not be that different.
And it is not the same as an insulation tester, because it is just a short spike, so what is interesting
is the clamping speed and level. The different polarities could be the only thing which is missing, but that is not a problem, or you could just change the polarity manually for the sake of one spike.

So it would NOT be a simulation of what would happen if the same spike would come in on the mains, but only whether the single spike itself would at all get through the surge arrester (or the one single MOV in some electronics) in any form. Would it let through a short 1000V peak from 3000 V? Or only 300V?  Different rise times?

So yes, different to what would happen with the mains event, but still enough to see how fast it clamps, and at which voltage. Of which the manufacturers never really tell anything.
If a manufacturer will cheap out in the protection, and want to build a product which is cheap, and doesn't go wrong over time, than it just chooses a MOV with such a high value, that it will never really
protect anything. And probably that is what happens most of the time, and most of the spike would get through.

Just like your tests with the multimeters are not safety tests, and not simulating a huge energy event, this would also not be an AC line surge test, but still interesting to check the claping level and speed.

[AndrewBCN]

...
I certainly agree that the signal-to-noise noise to signal ratio on YouTube, or even EEVBlog can be quite high.  But you make it seem as if there are only two choices--social media or Intertek--and that your decisions somehow need to be made on technical merits.  You say you 'prefer to rely', which to me means 'choose to believe'--a silly concept IMO, but we'll go with it.  I opt to rely on a the technical merit and integrity of companies that have provided excellent products that have served me and others reliably, sometimes under very tough conditions, for decades.
...

That's called "reputation" and if you "choose to believe" in the reputation of any particular company, that's your subjective choice, based on a) your personal anecdotal experience, b) the anecdotal experience of others and c) a carefully constructed brand image. I prefer to rely on independent testing and certification reports which despite all their flaws, are an objective criteria.

A review of any testing equipment that emphasizes subjective criteria is, in my opinion, a poor review - and that's what you mostly find on YouTube and social media in general. When it comes to safety, a good review should always mention whether a piece of test equipment is or not independently certified, by which certification company, and to what standards.

As Dave has mentioned, most test equipment made in China is not independently certified at all. All the more reason to carefully review the few rare ones that are, whether they are priced at 15€ (including shipping and taxes) or above 200€.

You seem to have such contempt for anything made in China that you wrote off the UNI-T UT125C right off the bat, even though I have linked to its certification by Intertek. Then you dismissed the Intertek Shenzhen "branch" as an unreliable independent certification company, and when I pointed out to you that there is no such thing as an Intertek Shenzhen "branch" (Intertek have 12 different offices in Shenzhen alone), you decided to cast doubt on all independent certification companies and the independent testing and certification process itself.

I guess there is no end to your arrogance.

[joeqsmith]

...
The short circuit current waveform will not be even remotely close to correct,
...
Where did you get the idea that they have the same energy levels? 
...
Your opinion is that the waveforms I use to test the meters are adequate to test mains devices.  My opinion is that you're ignorant on AC mains testing.  Of course, you could start doing some research if it interests you and correct that deficiency but you will not find many details in this thread about it.

Thanks for the more detailed explanation, but if I am not completely wrong, we might talk about two different thing.
...
And if the rise time is the same, the peak voltage is the same and the energy as well, than the short circuit current waveform during that small spike can not be that different.
...

While I could continue to explain to you that the energy is not the same,  you would ignore it.   I asked

Where did you get the idea that they have the same energy levels? 

thinking I may be able to explain where your thinking is flawed but you refused to answer.    Ignorance can be overcome easily with education but I suspect learning is also a problem for you.    It's similar to discussing the basics with the people interested in perpetual motion.  It becomes a religion to them and they can't move beyond it.

I suspect you lack in basic physics.  Somehow you feel that if you have two voltage waveforms that look identical, have the same source impedance and even the same peak current, that means they have the same energy available. 

[AndrewBCN]

Just a note: the UNI-T UT61E+ that Joe is testing these days is not independently certified. On the other hand, the UT161E, which externally seems identical, is certified by Intertek (from the manual: "Conforms to UL STD 61010-1, 61010-030, 61010-2-033, Certified to CSA STD C22.2 No. 61010-1, 61010-030, 61010-2-033.")

The cost of these two DMMs, including VAT and shipping to France:

- UT61E+: 73€ shipped from China (2 to 3 weeks).
- UT161E: 75€ shipped from Spain (3 to 7 days).

Personally I would rather pay an extra €2 and get the certified UT161E.

- UT61E+ manual (PDF): https://www.uni-trend.com/uploadfile/2020/1101/20201101050334873.pdf
- UT161E manual (PDF): https://www.uni-trend.com/uploadfile/2020/1101/20201101050334873.pdf

Certification (or lack thereof) is mentioned on page 6.

[EEVblog]

That's called "reputation" and if you "choose to believe" in the reputation of any particular company, that's your subjective choice, based on a) your personal anecdotal experience, b) the anecdotal experience of others and c) a carefully constructed brand image. I prefer to rely on independent testing and certification reports which despite all their flaws, are an objective criteria.

But then you have companies like Uni-T that have a reputation for changing and omitting parts in models on a whim.
Even if they have a properly certified model with no evidence of that happening in that model, that image can still cast doubt on the company based on the subjective "feels".
As we say in Australia, it's "the vibe".
It can be hard for a company to change that image. I can remember when Brymen had a reputation as a chinky Taiwanese maker of cheap meters, it took several decades to get to where they are now.

[Neutrion]

...
The short circuit current waveform will not be even remotely close to correct,
...
Where did you get the idea that they have the same energy levels? 
...
Your opinion is that the waveforms I use to test the meters are adequate to test mains devices.  My opinion is that you're ignorant on AC mains testing.  Of course, you could start doing some research if it interests you and correct that deficiency but you will not find many details in this thread about it.

Thanks for the more detailed explanation, but if I am not completely wrong, we might talk about two different thing.
...
And if the rise time is the same, the peak voltage is the same and the energy as well, than the short circuit current waveform during that small spike can not be that different.
...

While I could continue to explain to you that the energy is not the same,  you would ignore it.   I asked

Where did you get the idea that they have the same energy levels? 

thinking I may be able to explain where your thinking is flawed but you refused to answer.    Ignorance can be overcome easily with education but I suspect learning is also a problem for you.    It's similar to discussing the basics with the people interested in perpetual motion.  It becomes a religion to them and they can't move beyond it.

I did not ignore your question, but the starting assumption of the discussion was this, and I supposed you read it:

I understand that it is not exacly the same setup,but it is similar, by means of trying to clamp down an overvoltage to save a microcontroller, and other sensitive stuff.
Even small energy spikes get through the main lines which damage equipment.
And it is indeed interesting, what different surge protectors can let through from even these small energy spikes.
So if you mean it is ignorance because the small energy involved, than again, you don't necessary have huge surges on the AC line.

You did not argue with this statement. That is why I asked you what else can be so dramatically different if we are talking about LOW ENERGY SURGES. But than you got back to the energy level.
If I commented this in your style would that raise the quality level of the discussion?

[joeqsmith]

I did not ignore your question, but the starting assumption of the discussion was this, and I supposed you read it:

I understand that it is not exacly the same setup,but it is similar, by means of trying to clamp down an overvoltage to save a microcontroller, and other sensitive stuff.
Even small energy spikes get through the main lines which damage equipment.
And it is indeed interesting, what different surge protectors can let through from even these small energy spikes.
So if you mean it is ignorance because the small energy involved, than again, you don't necessary have huge surges on the AC line.

You did not argue with this statement. That is why I asked you what else can be so dramatically different if we are talking about LOW ENERGY SURGES. But than you got back to the energy level.
If I commented this in your style would that raise the quality level of the discussion?

There's no argument.  To raise the quality of the discussion, I would expect you to bring more to the table.  My advice would be to start a new thread on AC appliance testing or what ever your area of interest is.   Explain what your goals are.   Define these small energy spikes you are talking about.  Show where they have caused problems.   Show how they compare with the IEC standards.   It's nothing I would have any interest in but I suspect you would find others would chime in.   

[joeqsmith]

It can be hard for a company to change that image. I can remember when Brymen had a reputation as a chinky Taiwanese maker of cheap meters, it took several decades to get to where they are now.

Considering it took me several decades to own another Fluke product at home because the price/performance was so poor with the first one I bought, it's not unique to Brymen.  There's a learning curve and even Fluke continues to evolve.   


Depending how my testing goes, I may have to buy another UT61E+ just to satisfy my own curiosity.  If it survives what the low voltage generator can put out, I think it's going to deserve a closer look...  Of course, if I buy a second one, it may have a whole new circuit design...

[AndrewBCN]

...
But then you have companies like Uni-T that have a reputation for changing and omitting parts in models on a whim.
...

That's anecdotal, and even though it matters for a company's reputation or "vibes", objectively you would have to comparatively test to see how it affects the product's performance or safety.

And since we are on the level of anecdotes, I can point out that my 2021 15€ Intertek-certified UNI-T UT125C is indeed slightly different from that reviewed by HKJ three years ago: apparently it has an extra clamping diode in the input circuit.

[bdunham7]

I prefer to rely on independent testing and certification reports which despite all their flaws, are an objective criteria.

Are you sure they are objective?  How do you know?  And is 'objectivity' really a goal unto itself?  I may be opinionated, but right (of course that's what I think) and someone else may be 'objective' but utterly incompetent.  Or, the company may screw with the system in other ways.  Or, the actual testing and certification might not cover a particular aspect that is very important to me or any other customer.  Unless you actually have, read and understand the CAT III criteria, what good does it really do you to know that it is 'certified' to meet that standard? Anyway, good for you--you can do as you please.

A review of any testing equipment that emphasizes subjective criteria is, in my opinion, a poor review - and that's what you mostly find on YouTube and social media in general.

Oh bullshit!  A 'good review' is a review of whatever the reviewer chooses to review--aesthetics, accuracy, ease of use, whatever you like.  A 'certified' DMM that takes 18 seconds to autorange, for example, would be something a good reviewer might point out.  Reviewers, users and other lesser contemptibles have occasionally found or demonstrated flaws in 'certified' products that are later corrected by the manufacturer.  Things like light causing errors through the IR port and GSM phones bricking meters. 

You seem to have such contempt for anything made in China that you wrote off the UNI-T UT125C right off the bat, even though I have linked to its certification by Intertek. Then you dismissed the Intertek Shenzhen "branch"

Where have I expressed this broad contempt for anything made in China and what reasoning leads you to the conclusion that I would dismiss the UT125C because of its nationality?  And why do you think that 'branch' is wrong and 'office' is right?  Do you have extensive knowledge about the internal organization of multi-national global companies in general or Intertek in particular?

I guess there is no end to your arrogance.

I would have expected you to call me ignorant, 'arrogant' seems odd somehow.  But in any case, if contempt for a company that makes rubbish meters and gets a few of them independently certified but prints CAT markings on all of them makes me arrogant, I'll wear the badge proudly arrogantly.

[bdunham7]

That's anecdotal, and even though it matters for a company's reputation or "vibes", objectively you would have to comparatively test to see how it affects the product's performance or safety.

Seriously?  So if a car company gets a model past the NCAP crash test and then subsequently starts omitting the airbags, you would dismiss that as 'anecdotal' and require new crash tests before you could conclude that the company was unethical or that the car was unsafe?  I'm not all sure that you comprehend how things work.  If a product is 'certified', then the products have to be manufactured in the same way as the exemplars.  To do otherwise is fraud, no matter how you try to paper around it.

And b/t/w, a meter missing parts is not 'anecdotal', it is physical evidence. 

[bdunham7]

But what I was talking about (and maybe bdunham7 also) is just the voltage spike itself without mains connected. And if the rise time is the same, the peak voltage is the same and the energy as well, than the short circuit current waveform during that small spike can not be that different.

Just to be clear, what I was referring to would be something completely different, and a diagnostic or analytical tool not a test.  I don't have the time or inclination to pursue it at the moment, so I'll just point out that the whole situation with spikes and energy isn't that simple.  For example, it is entirely possible for a surge to 'get through' and damage a microprocessor without ever causing any arcing or even clamping in a protective circuit, so damage to equipment is not perfectly correlated to potential for arc or fire hazards.  There are already standards for this, so if you were going to rig something up, I'd start there.  One issue that you'd have to consider is that an AC mains connected device is in a low-impedance circuit and you can't really have low energy, low impedance and high voltage--so something has to give.

[joeqsmith]

There are already standards for this, so if you were going to rig something up, I'd start there.

A few years back, someone was selling off a pallet of test equipment for AC line testing.   Looked like a lab had closed and they were selling off the assets.   If I were going to toe dip into this area, I would try and find another deal like this. 

[bdunham7]

A few years back, someone was selling off a pallet of test equipment for AC line testing.   Looked like a lab had closed and they were selling off the assets.   If I were going to toe dip into this area, I would try and find another deal like this.

If I wanted a YouTube channel to compete with ElectroBOOM, that would be the way to go!  Buy cheap crap on Amazon and blow it up, all with big, official looking equipment.

[joeqsmith]

A few years back, someone was selling off a pallet of test equipment for AC line testing.   Looked like a lab had closed and they were selling off the assets.   If I were going to toe dip into this area, I would try and find another deal like this.

If I wanted a YouTube channel to compete with ElectroBOOM, that would be the way to go!  Buy cheap crap on Amazon and blow it up, all with big, official looking equipment.

Hire a good looking female to narrate it for you and you will have a million followers in no time. 

[Fungus]

Just a note: the UNI-T UT61E+ that Joe is testing these days is not independently certified. On the other hand, the UT161E, which externally seems identical, is certified by Intertek (from the manual: "Conforms to UL STD 61010-1, 61010-030, 61010-2-033, Certified to CSA STD C22.2 No. 61010-1, 61010-030, 61010-2-033.")

The cost of these two DMMs, including VAT and shipping to France:

- UT61E+: 73€ shipped from China (2 to 3 weeks).
- UT161E: 75€ shipped from Spain (3 to 7 days).

Personally I would rather pay an extra €2 and get the certified UT161E.

Do you know about the different versions of the 61E, with varying amounts of input protection?

Here's two of them side by side:


Which "UT61E" do you claim is certified? Which one do you think you'll get for 75 Euros? Better cross your fingers when you order...

Ref: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/uni-t-ut61e-multimeter-teardown-photos/msg1437056/#msg1437056

[armandine2]

"If I wanted a YouTube channel to compete with ElectroBOOM"


He is, from what I can see, a teacher -  the upbeat performance of teaching is felt necessary nowadays to capture the attention of children. But, note  he isn't a slouch and will go after the careless physics professor!

[Neutrion]

But what I was talking about (and maybe bdunham7 also) is just the voltage spike itself without mains connected. And if the rise time is the same, the peak voltage is the same and the energy as well, than the short circuit current waveform during that small spike can not be that different.

Just to be clear, what I was referring to would be something completely different, and a diagnostic or analytical tool not a test.  I don't have the time or inclination to pursue it at the moment, so I'll just point out that the whole situation with spikes and energy isn't that simple.  For example, it is entirely possible for a surge to 'get through' and damage a microprocessor without ever causing any arcing or even clamping in a protective circuit, so damage to equipment is not perfectly correlated to potential for arc or fire hazards.  There are already standards for this, so if you were going to rig something up, I'd start there.  One issue that you'd have to consider is that an AC mains connected device is in a low-impedance circuit and you can't really have low energy, low impedance and high voltage--so something has to give.

Well, if you read through my comments, I actually never even used the word "arc", so we are talking about the same issue. If I wrote "Test" and everybody interpreted it as an official test following som standards... well than, that was a mistake, and from now on I will use the word EXPERIMENT.   .
I hope we are not ignorant to have some interest in this.

Here is an old paper:
https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/pml/div684/Residential_Surges.pdf
And a never one:
https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Electrical/RFDataAssessmentforElectricalSurgeProtectionDevices.ashx

Especialy the low energy spikes will be hard to find any info about, because they don't cause imediate failure so it would be difficult to asess what would be the most common but already harmful energy and voltage level.But I think something well within Joes generators range.
In the recent past I was trying to find out why the lnk305 and co ICs die in huge masses in commercial equipment in a wery short time. And if there were no production issues, and not all of the equipment manufacturer is using this part in a completely wrong way, one of the culprit was these small surges.
Not much info about it even on this forum, I might open a topic once.

A few years back, someone was selling off a pallet of test equipment for AC line testing.   Looked like a lab had closed and they were selling off the assets.   If I were going to toe dip into this area, I would try and find another deal like this.

If I wanted a YouTube channel to compete with ElectroBOOM, that would be the way to go!  Buy cheap crap on Amazon and blow it up, all with big, official looking equipment.

Yes, although I hope that the one who will earn some extra money with this will also posess the scientific knowledge and interest, and equipment to properly analyze the events, and the circuits. Dave was also enjoing blowing up stuff by the way, only at the canyonig trip did I saw him to be that enthusiastic again.
And while turning the Gossens range switch. (OK the range switching revolutionized my private life as well.)
But basically every healthy man enjoys blowing up stuff!

(And to not to let someone misunderstand this, I am avare that the high energy testing is an other topic, but also interested in that one.)

[bdunham7]

Especialy the low energy spikes will be hard to find any info about, because they don't cause imediate failure so it would be difficult to asess what would be the most common but already harmful energy and voltage level.But I think something well within Joes generators range.

You're going to have to define and quantify 'low energy' and fully specify the circuit characteristics and other test conditions for any further discussion to have meaning.  I wouldn't call the jqs^TM transients 'low energy'.