Poll

How many cycles will the KeySight U1281A's detent spring last?

0-2000
7 (17.9%)
2k-4k
5 (12.8%)
4k-8k
14 (35.9%)
8k-16k
7 (17.9%)
>16k (most rubust meter ever made)
6 (15.4%)

Total Members Voted: 36

Author Topic: Handheld meter robustness testing  (Read 1149893 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5980
  • Country: us
  • Eternally curious
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4500 on: August 07, 2022, 10:46:13 pm »
It's no problem if you don't want to run it.  I wasn't accusing anyone of being a fanboy.  This was a brand new meter and I was just curious if Keysight's older revisions may have performed better.
Cool; I just wanted to be sure. :-+

I will watch your two videos and let you know of any discrepancies - after all, any manufacturer has the "right to change the product without prior or express warning". :-/

(Been caught on that a few times).
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline joeqsmithTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4501 on: August 07, 2022, 10:57:30 pm »
Maybe I am the only one who found the attached comment a bit odd.   It's a very old meter and has been reviewed before including by Dave.

Very strange...

I just checked out his channel and don't believe I have ever watched any of his videos.   Skimming the last one, no sign of the Keysight meter yet.  It will be interesting to see what he comes up with.   

Offline joeqsmithTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4502 on: August 07, 2022, 11:27:11 pm »
It's no problem if you don't want to run it.  I wasn't accusing anyone of being a fanboy.  This was a brand new meter and I was just curious if Keysight's older revisions may have performed better.
Cool; I just wanted to be sure. :-+

I will watch your two videos and let you know of any discrepancies - after all, any manufacturer has the "right to change the product without prior or express warning". :-/

(Been caught on that a few times).

It's just very odd how it behaves.   It's very repeatable and appears independent of the amplitude (within reason) and wave shape.  I tried both a sine as well as a squareish wave, using both LVDS and PECL drivers.   I've also tried various terminations, none of which seems to matter.   Not all of that made it on the video as I didn't see it adding anything.  Had it made any difference in how the meter responded, I would have left it in.   

Offline NoMoreMagicSmoke

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4503 on: August 08, 2022, 12:49:07 am »
One just describes the drift, which could be well within the accuracy.  Say for example, we wanted to compensate for that error to tighten the measurement.

I always thought that the temperature coefficient was additional error that needed to be added to the published specification when outside of the specified (usually 18-28C) range. Is my interpretation wrong?
 

Offline NoMoreMagicSmoke

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4504 on: August 08, 2022, 01:02:56 am »
One just describes the drift, which could be well within the accuracy.  Say for example, we wanted to compensate for that error to tighten the measurement.

I always thought that the temperature coefficient was additional error that needed to be added to the published specification when outside of the specified (usually 18-28C) range. Is my interpretation wrong?

Also from the next page in the datasheet they specifically state the accuracy is 23C +-5C. It might be my interpretation, but to say "Full accuracy from -20C to 55C" then later state "Accuracy is given as ± (% of reading + counts of least significant digit) at 23 °C ± 5 °C" seems like questionable wording to me.

Quotes from https://www.keysight.com/us/en/assets/7018-04867/data-sheets/5992-0847.pdf

 

Offline joeqsmithTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4505 on: August 09, 2022, 12:35:03 am »
Let me start by stating I would always turn to the manufacture to explain any questions I have about a specifications.   It's not my design and I was not involved with writing the documentation.  That said, I finally downloaded the documentation for the meter and would interpret it as ... 

"Full accuracy from -20C to 55C" is just a general statement suggesting they have characterized it over this range.   

Unless otherwise specified,  "Accuracy is given as ± (% of reading + counts of least significant digit) at 23 °C ± 5 °C"  provides the default accuracy.   
You will find notes for example, the temp coefficient for the 6V range is 0.075 x .......  in cases where the defaults do not apply. 

If you wanted to operate outside of the specified 23 °C ± 5 °C range,  you need to account for it using the temperature coefficient "0.05 x (specified accuracy) / °C (from –20 °C to 18 °C or 28 °C to 55 °C)"

Again, always ask the manufacture.   


Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5980
  • Country: us
  • Eternally curious
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4506 on: August 09, 2022, 12:49:24 am »
It's no problem if you don't want to run it.  I wasn't accusing anyone of being a fanboy.  This was a brand new meter and I was just curious if Keysight's older revisions may have performed better.
Cool; I just wanted to be sure. :-+

I will watch your two videos and let you know of any discrepancies - after all, any manufacturer has the "right to change the product without prior or express warning". :-/

(Been caught on that a few times).

It's just very odd how it behaves.   It's very repeatable and appears independent of the amplitude (within reason) and wave shape.  I tried both a sine as well as a squareish wave, using both LVDS and PECL drivers.   I've also tried various terminations, none of which seems to matter.   Not all of that made it on the video as I didn't see it adding anything.  Had it made any difference in how the meter responded, I would have left it in.   
I got to run it on the signal generator; up to -30dBm I got about 19MHz; at at -20dBm I got 25MHz, -10dBm I got about 27MHz and at 0dBm I got 31MHz.
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline joeqsmithTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4507 on: August 09, 2022, 01:38:15 am »
Thank you for running this test.  Your data is exactly what I had measured:

Input signal, U1282A measured
29MHz, 29MHz
30MHz, 30MHz
31MHz, 77.5MHz
32, 80
33, 82.5
34, 85
35, 87.5

based on your 32, 80 I expect your meter would behave much the same at the other data points.   I think the meter displays zero once I took it above this.  Sorry, I didn't write it down where it actually stopped doing anything.   

Sad to see CEM of all companies actually putting something similar in their spec and surpassing it while Keysight.....   
 
The following users thanked this post: rsjsouza

Offline NoMoreMagicSmoke

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4508 on: August 09, 2022, 01:59:12 am »
Let me start by stating I would always turn to the manufacture to explain any questions I have about a specifications. 

Absolutely. Always get clarification with the manufacturer if there are questions about a specification.

I only brought up this wording because it is different than the wording on most other DMM spec sheets and COULD be misinterpreted to imply that the stated specifications were accurate across the entire operating range (vs the actual 18-28C range). Pointing out another instance (similar to the frequency limits) that can be misread to interpret the specifications to be something different than the actual printed specification.
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23018
  • Country: gb
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4509 on: August 09, 2022, 08:09:29 am »
Hope you have a registered VAT number then  :-DD
 

Offline joeqsmithTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4510 on: August 09, 2022, 12:28:02 pm »
Hope you have a registered VAT number then  :-DD

From my early attempts to contact them, I knew there would be no support if I bought one.   I never tried to contact them about the poor quality of their detent spring as I just didn't see the point or wasting any more time with it.   

To be fair, they are present on this site and I expect are aware of what I have presented.  They have never attempted to contact me.   Still, I find it odd they would send the same meter to another reviewer now that I have started to look at it.   I doubt that was by accident.    :-DD 
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23018
  • Country: gb
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4511 on: August 09, 2022, 12:33:35 pm »
Did Keysight ever send you any kit?

If not I suspect they're scared you'll break it :-DD

Incidentally I had a Keysight U1241C. Could have been a decent meter but they screwed up touch hold, the UI sucked and the buttons were sticky  :palm:. I did a YT video ages ago about it against a Fluke 87V which ended up with me punching the KS meter off the desk...
« Last Edit: August 09, 2022, 12:35:59 pm by bd139 »
 

Offline joeqsmithTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4512 on: August 09, 2022, 02:14:24 pm »
Did Keysight ever send you any kit?

They never even took the time to acknowledge my emails.   So, no.   The only meters that were supplied "free of charge" from the manufactures were
Dave's preproduction 121GWs (the second I purchased) along with Brymen's prototype and production meters (except for my first BM869s which I purchased).   While I have had a few places on these low end stores offereing to send me products to review, I decline them.   UNI-T contacted me that one time but again, once I explained what I was doing that ended the discussion. 

Brymen has been the only company who has expressed any interest in seeing how their products stack up on a level playing field. 
 
The following users thanked this post: Kean, bd139

Offline Neutrion

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 305
  • Country: hu
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4513 on: August 09, 2022, 07:22:43 pm »
If the meter is not destroyed yet, than here is my wish list:
-The controversal dc biased AC mV overload test, which you were also doing earlier on some meters.(Not on video but were posting the results here in the forum.)
-Display update speed when measuring changing current. (You did a comparison once on different meters.)
-General current reading capability, to test its freq limit, its response to different waveforms, especially square waves which could come from a VFD, also with low duty cycles.
-Crest mode, also with current (If that would not be part of the standard procedure.)

Edit:
-Continuity current, and range, also how it keeps the false alarms at bay (or not.) This might be tested on a real circuit.

Thanks in advance!
« Last Edit: August 09, 2022, 07:35:44 pm by Neutrion »
 

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5980
  • Country: us
  • Eternally curious
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4514 on: August 09, 2022, 11:23:40 pm »
(...)
-Crest mode, also with current (If that would not be part of the standard procedure.)

Edit:
-Continuity current, and range, also how it keeps the false alarms at bay (or not.) This might be tested on a real circuit.

Thanks in advance!
I did some tests of crest response and autorange speed of various meters on my channel, including the U1282A. The video is in portuguese, though.

Crest
https://youtu.be/ZDGdnGpG3ho

Autorange
https://youtu.be/EWZ0OSjYnvg

Regarding false alarms, the U1282A is very strident with its Vsense and the input jack alert, which is more a scream whenever you switch to any current range. This is a reason why I don't use it in current ranges - it is excessively annoying and I can't think of a single reason why someone would think this was a good idea.
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline joeqsmithTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4515 on: August 10, 2022, 12:40:03 am »
If the meter is not destroyed yet, than here is my wish list:
-The controversal dc biased AC mV overload test, which you were also doing earlier on some meters.(Not on video but were posting the results here in the forum.)
-Display update speed when measuring changing current. (You did a comparison once on different meters.)
-General current reading capability, to test its freq limit, its response to different waveforms, especially square waves which could come from a VFD, also with low duty cycles.
-Crest mode, also with current (If that would not be part of the standard procedure.)

Edit:
-Continuity current, and range, also how it keeps the false alarms at bay (or not.) This might be tested on a real circuit.

Thanks in advance!
For those not aware, background for this may be found here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/brymen-bm789/

There's some pretty funny posts in the thread.   One year later, I still see it as a pointless case outside of a bit of entertainment it may provide.   Like I mentioned back then I will use a blocking cap and that hasn't changed.   

So while I am sure I can find cases where the Keysight has problems, that's nothing I would hold against the meter. 

Rarely I do anything with the current inputs on these meters.  Any idea what video shows the test you are interested in?   If so, provide a link and I will see about replicating it.

Offline joeqsmithTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4516 on: August 10, 2022, 12:44:06 am »
Regarding false alarms, the U1282A is very strident with its Vsense and the input jack alert, which is more a scream whenever you switch to any current range. This is a reason why I don't use it in current ranges - it is excessively annoying and I can't think of a single reason why someone would think this was a good idea.

To try and warn the beginner that once they move that lead, that meter presents basically a short and whey they go to try and measure their home outlets current by placing the meters lead directly into the outputs, they are in for a surprise.    :-DD   

That alarm they have was a surprise...  Kids seem to like these reaction videos.  Had I recorded that moment, you would have seen the look of WTF????!!!   

Offline NoMoreMagicSmoke

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4517 on: August 10, 2022, 01:02:16 am »
To try and warn the beginner that once they move that lead, that meter presents basically a short and whey they go to try and measure their home outlets current by placing the meters lead directly into the outputs, they are in for a surprise.    :-DD   

I walked by a new EE's desk at work today, and I saw a meter apart and a fuse out... Apparently the Fluke 117 must not have that alarm.  :-DD
 
The following users thanked this post: joeqsmith

Offline joeqsmithTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4518 on: August 10, 2022, 04:18:03 am »
I installed the software for the meter.  I have to say, the software UNI-T and CEM has provided would be much better for my needs and that should say it all.   

I change the sample rate to 10 seconds, stop and restart, it still runs a 1sps.   I try to change where it logs data but it doesn't seem to allow it.  Zoom into an area, sorry, you can't really.    Stats, what are stats.   Looks like you can export the data to Excel but say the system dies.  You now have this XML file.  Where's the import function and post processing?     It seems to have a lot of features to stay in touch with me while I am out playing a round of golf or getting my foo foo drink.    I don't golf and drink black coffee and so these features are useless in that respect.   Looks more like one of the marketing employee's kids wrote it than a group of professionals.       

On the plus side, they did at least document the commands so putting something together wouldn't take a lot of effort.   

Someone asked about running some day long tests.  I plan to let it run and see if the software is at least stable and that I can get the data into a useful format. 

If you use their software, what's been your experience?   Think its the best data capture software ever created?   Crash and burn on you a lot?   

***
I see the import data. 
Tried the export to CSV.  Still would need a way to do something with the data.
Don't press report unless you want to restart the app as it seems to hang it.
The only way I have found to clear the plot was to exit the software and restart it. 

Good stuff...
« Last Edit: August 10, 2022, 04:32:22 am by joeqsmith »
 

Online HKJ

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2899
  • Country: dk
    • Tests
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4519 on: August 10, 2022, 07:29:54 am »
I installed the software for the meter.  I have to say, the software UNI-T and CEM has provided would be much better for my needs and that should say it all.   

With this meter you can use TestController: https://lygte-info.dk/project/TestControllerIntro%20UK.html
It have a lot more flexibility, including handle more than one meter or other devices at a time. TestController will run on Windows, Linux and Mac.
 

Offline joeqsmithTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4520 on: August 10, 2022, 12:45:59 pm »
From the YT comments, moved here for ease..

Quote
joe smith
8 hours ago
I have the software installed and I guess working.   What are the requirements for what you are attempting to measure?  Saying resistance of a cryo coil doesn't tell me much.   What is the value you are expecting to read, what sort of accuracy, how much drift do you expect from the test coil?    Have you looked at the specs for the meter and you know it it is capable of making the measurement you need?   It's easy to waste a bunch of time taking useless data.  I would like to make sure I understand what you are looking for and then we can perhaps use a low tempco resistor in that same range to check it.    Obviously, you know it's not a 4-wire Kelvin bench device and it wouldn't compare to even my old bench meters.

Chuan Liu
2 hours ago
 @joe smith  My colleague is expecting the copper coil resistance to drop from 8 ohm to around 1 ohm within several minutes, and maintain that level for several hours. The accuracy of this meter's 60 Ohm range is 0.15 % + 20, which is not impressive, but it is acceptable for the purpose at the current stage. I would like to find out if the meter can maintain its accuracy and linearity within a prolonged period. If the meter can maintain a good linearity, I think the data would still be usable, even with a lower accuracy. We are expecting to receive some microohm meters with proper 4-wire leads sometime in the future. Maybe we can use it to adjust the offset afterward, providing the Keysight meter can maintain a good linearity. Another way is to use a current source to inject a constant current through the coil and sue the meter to measure the voltage drop, but the accuracy of the current source will have an impact on the result, which we need to do some math with. Therefore I'd like to find out the meter's accuracy and linearity on both DCV range and resistance range. We do have some bench meters, but they are quite old and we don't have any suitable hardware to setup the PC connection.

I'm surprised you would consider using a 2-wire approach below 10.  I have a very old HP34401A that I bought new when they first came out.  It's like a wind up childs toy compared with the HP3489A (shown with a 1ohm standard attached).   When using the this meter, I will do some software tricks to improve the measurement.   Just make sure you understand what you are after before you collect any data.  I would expect what you are asking to be a paper study more than anything.   
 
Shown after 7 hours with a 40R0000 0.005% +/-1ppm S102K attached.   Meter just setting on  my desk in open air (no temp control).   After 3 hours, something happens that we see a spike down to 1.239 ohms.  There is nothing going on during this time.  Office is closed off.   So I am going to suggest the software/firmware/hardware has a problem.      Zooming into this area, and ignoring the glitch we can see the meter changes 2 counts.   I have a low tempco 0.5ohm I'll attach and let it run for the day.   
 
The following users thanked this post: Chance92

Offline Neutrion

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 305
  • Country: hu
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4521 on: August 10, 2022, 02:00:00 pm »
If the meter is not destroyed yet, than here is my wish list:
-The controversal dc biased AC mV overload test, which you were also doing earlier on some meters.(Not on video but were posting the results here in the forum.)
-Display update speed when measuring changing current. (You did a comparison once on different meters.)
-General current reading capability, to test its freq limit, its response to different waveforms, especially square waves which could come from a VFD, also with low duty cycles.
-Crest mode, also with current (If that would not be part of the standard procedure.)

Edit:
-Continuity current, and range, also how it keeps the false alarms at bay (or not.) This might be tested on a real circuit.

Thanks in advance!
For those not aware, background for this may be found here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/brymen-bm789/

There's some pretty funny posts in the thread.   One year later, I still see it as a pointless case outside of a bit of entertainment it may provide.   Like I mentioned back then I will use a blocking cap and that hasn't changed.   

So while I am sure I can find cases where the Keysight has problems, that's nothing I would hold against the meter. 

Rarely I do anything with the current inputs on these meters.  Any idea what video shows the test you are interested in?   If so, provide a link and I will see about replicating it.
I am only interested whether the overload would be indicated or not.
The topic with many meters tested for this is actualy this one:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/brymen-multimeters-fault/

Maybe one or two meter passed this test from all of yours.

Here is the crest mode test. Would be avesome to have this test with current as well. Not many have current probes to have an idea about the meters limits.


Unfortunately I could not find the current display update rate "test" as it was just a small part of another video.
You were having the meters in series and changing the test current. Some meters were responding really
Slowly.
I only found this so far, for current reading test:


The AC current freq. Is also interesting because Keysight claims it to read up to 100Khz. With similar accuracy like the Brymen BM869. The BM789 is specced only up to 3 kHz but maybe reads even higher I don't remember anyone ever checked this.

Edit:
Now that you made your wife to be the standard switch-feeling tester, it is a pity that you didn't show her the dt830 meter. Maybe it turns out that I am not alone. :)
Now she is going to get a lot of invitations from all the meter manufacturers from all over the world.


« Last Edit: August 10, 2022, 02:34:58 pm by Neutrion »
 

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5980
  • Country: us
  • Eternally curious
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4522 on: August 10, 2022, 02:59:32 pm »
I installed the software for the meter.  I have to say, the software UNI-T and CEM has provided would be much better for my needs and that should say it all.   

I change the sample rate to 10 seconds, stop and restart, it still runs a 1sps.   I try to change where it logs data but it doesn't seem to allow it.  Zoom into an area, sorry, you can't really.    Stats, what are stats.   Looks like you can export the data to Excel but say the system dies.  You now have this XML file.  Where's the import function and post processing?     It seems to have a lot of features to stay in touch with me while I am out playing a round of golf or getting my foo foo drink.    I don't golf and drink black coffee and so these features are useless in that respect.   Looks more like one of the marketing employee's kids wrote it than a group of professionals.       

On the plus side, they did at least document the commands so putting something together wouldn't take a lot of effort.   

Someone asked about running some day long tests.  I plan to let it run and see if the software is at least stable and that I can get the data into a useful format. 

If you use their software, what's been your experience?   Think its the best data capture software ever created?   Crash and burn on you a lot?   

***
I see the import data. 
Tried the export to CSV.  Still would need a way to do something with the data.
Don't press report unless you want to restart the app as it seems to hang it.
The only way I have found to clear the plot was to exit the software and restart it. 

Good stuff...
The SW generally works well for me (although I am on Windows 8 and not the newfangled 10), but the biggest annoyance is that is requires MS Office installed for any reporting/export functions. That is a PITA as I haven't installed MS Office in years in my PCs (I use some really excellent clones such as the Softmaker Freeoffice).
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline joeqsmithTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11632
  • Country: us
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4523 on: August 10, 2022, 03:23:28 pm »
For those not aware, background for this may be found here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/brymen-bm789/

There's some pretty funny posts in the thread.   One year later, I still see it as a pointless case outside of a bit of entertainment it may provide.   Like I mentioned back then I will use a blocking cap and that hasn't changed.   

So while I am sure I can find cases where the Keysight has problems, that's nothing I would hold against the meter. 

Rarely I do anything with the current inputs on these meters.  Any idea what video shows the test you are interested in?   If so, provide a link and I will see about replicating it.
I am only interested whether the overload would be indicated or not.
The topic with many meters tested for this is actualy this one:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/brymen-multimeters-fault/

Maybe one or two meter passed this test from all of yours.

I'm not aware of any meters I have that are perfect.  If you feel there were, let me know which and I can have another look.   It is very possible that someone has a specific case they were running and I had meters that would handle it but let's be clear that doesn't suggest they wouldn't have other problems.   As shown in the photo, you could see that Keysight is no exception.   

Quote
You were having the meters in series and changing the test current. Some meters were responding really Slowly.
You may have noticed from watching reviews for this Keysight that it is very slow.    I think the Martin (??) guy had made a video showing how it compared.  I think Dave may have made one as well.   You may want to try searching YT and see what's out there.  It's an old meter and many people have looked at it. 

Quote
Now that you made your wife to be the standard switch-feeling tester, it is a pity that you didn't show her the dt830 meter.
I didn't want to waste too much of her time but thought it was interesting that the Fluke 87V and UNI-T shown were both subjected to the 50,000 cycle life test and still have a better feel than the Keysight.   I never would have guessed she would like the BM869s.  Many people complain about how tight the switch is and the small knob.   

Offline Neutrion

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 305
  • Country: hu
Re: Handheld meter robustness testing
« Reply #4524 on: August 10, 2022, 03:23:55 pm »
(...)
-Crest mode, also with current (If that would not be part of the standard procedure.)

Edit:
-Continuity current, and range, also how it keeps the false alarms at bay (or not.) This might be tested on a real circuit.

Thanks in advance!
I did some tests of crest response and autorange speed of various meters on my channel, including the U1282A. The video is in portuguese, though.

Crest
https://youtu.be/ZDGdnGpG3ho

Autorange
https://youtu.be/EWZ0OSjYnvg

Regarding false alarms, the U1282A is very strident with its Vsense and the input jack alert, which is more a scream whenever you switch to any current range. This is a reason why I don't use it in current ranges - it is excessively annoying and I can't think of a single reason why someone would think this was a good idea.
Hi! The 1282 Is specified in Crest mode with repetitive signals down to 250 microseconds, so it should go further down than in your test.
It is also interesting that a single pulse is also specified but only with 1ms. This single pulse behaviour in peak detect mod is also a not very much tested thing, however in peak detect mode it would be quiet important to know about it.

With false alarms I meant the short beep in continuity mode when it encounters some capacity. With small test currents it is not trivial to get rid of it.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf