Is this a real or fake Fluke multimeter?

[Pcmaker]

I was looking for a cheapest, small multimeter and I found this on Amazon

its under 50 bucks but it claims to be a Fluke brand multimeter. Not much features, but it's got everything I need. I need it mostly for testing regular batteries, continuity and testing 120v to 240v electrical things.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HE6MIJY

[Martin72]

It seems it is a product for the asian market - google it then you will come to the indian fluke website.
When you can buy it in your country, it´s a gey market thing I guess.

[ataradov]

Yes, it is legit meter, but for Asian markets. If you buy it in the US, Fluke warranty would not apply. But it may not matter at that price.

Note that 101 does not have a current measurement capability. If you want a cheap, but fully capable Fluke, look at 15B+. It is also a model for the Asian markets, but you can get it for less than $100.

[bdunham7]

I was looking for a cheapest, small multimeter and I found this on Amazon

It isn't fake, but it is grey market, meaning Fluke has not authorized it for sale in the US--and there is no warranty.  Your Amazon 30-day return policy will be all you have, although your risk of failure after the 30 days is probably low.  The seller is in Korea, other sellers are in India or other places.  It would be fine for mains voltage and the like, but if you are testing regular AAA/AA/C/D and 9V batteries, you need a specific function for that with a set load, otherwise you won't get an accurate result.  It doesn't have that feature.

The cheapest small meter that does have that feature is the formerly free now $6 Harbor Freight atrocity.  I don't recommend it for any use on high energy or mains voltages, but it has been slightly improved over its even more atrocious predecessors, which were truly worth the $0.00 (free with any purchase) that they sold for.

https://www.harborfreight.com/7-function-digital-multimeter-63759.html

What might work better for you is something like the Klein Tools MM325, which appears to the about the same basic crappy meter in a much better package and hopefully with a better implementation and external components.  Start watching the linked video at about 6 minutes if you want to see what I mean about battery testing.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Klein-Tools-600-Volt-Digital-Multi-Meter-Manual-Ranging-MM325/320822947

[BeBuLamar]

Many Fluke DMM's including those that are in the US market don't have current measurement capacity. I myself rarely ever used the current measurement function. So even the Fluke 116 doesn't have the current measurement function. It would prevent the mistake of making voltage measurement while the test lead is in the current measurement jack.

[Fungus]

I was looking for a cheapest, small multimeter and I found this on Amazon

its under 50 bucks but it claims to be a Fluke brand multimeter. Not much features, but it's got everything I need. I need it mostly for testing regular batteries, continuity and testing 120v to 240v electrical things.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HE6MIJY

Fluke 101. Well respected, 100% Fluke.

The thing it lacks is current measurements but apart from that... it's a great little meter for the price.

(and very, very tough...)

[Pcmaker]

I do hotel maintenance, I dont do much low voltage stuff. I only need to check voltage from outlets mostly and check the batteries on the urinal flushers which are AA batteries.

[ataradov]

In that case, it is perfect.

[bdunham7]

In that case, it is perfect.

How is it good for testing AA batteries? 

[bdunham7]

I do hotel maintenance, I dont do much low voltage stuff. I only need to check voltage from outlets mostly and check the batteries on the urinal flushers which are AA batteries.

A multimeter might not be what you need.  Using test leads to measure either AA batteries or wall outlets directly is a bit awkward andclumsy.  In some cases it can even be a bit dangerous.

For the batteries, try this:

https://www.amazon.com/Amprobe-4589825-BAT-250-Battery-Tester/dp/B00OCBSASM

For testing outlets, if you just need a go/no-go result, try this or something like it:

https://www.amazon.com/Fluke-ST120-Socket-Tester-Audible/dp/B0B3VCZ4XK

If you actually need to measure the voltage accurately, then you need a DMM or similar device, but that would probably be at or beyond the point where you need an electrician. 

[Someone]

In that case, it is perfect.

How is it good for testing AA batteries? 

Because it will do an ok job of that while still meeting all the safety requirements for the mains work (robustness etc). Given the OPs description of what they do it seems like an excellent choice.

Are there better tools for battery testing? yes? But if the choice is a single device to do all the above I'd pick the Fluke 101 too.

[ataradov]

How is it good for testing AA batteries? 

It is mostly perfect for not sticking $6 Harbor Freight meter into the mains. And just getting the voltage from the battery is sufficient in many cases.

Obviously, dedicated tools would be better. But if you are looking for just one tool, this is fine.

And not even having the current range prevents you from sticking it into the mains on the current range.

[bdunham7]

Are there better tools for battery testing? yes? But if the choice is a single device to do all the above I'd pick the Fluke 101 too.

I don't know if 'single device' is a hard requirement here, but I really have to protest that ANY standard DMM with standard test leads is just a bad choice for either task.  Testing alkaline batteries OCV doesn't work and recent discusssions here have pointed out that using OCV is even more pointless than I'd previously imagined.  Probing wall sockets with test leads is also a fairly wretched way to do it, as you often have difficulty making contact and may wrongly assume that the socket is dead.  Any awkwardness or obstruction in getting to the socket makes that 3X worse.  And then there are some hazards as well--the accidental insertion of the leads into the amp jacks (not a problem with the 101, of course), accidentally touching the probe tips (note that the 101 has long, uninsulated probes) and even the possibility of shorting the socket internally.

The tools I've proposed are what works easily and safely in my experience.  The DMM won't work for the first task and sucks for the second.  And if you want to read the voltage at the socket for some reason, get a Kill-a-Watt type device that will even let you test under load.

https://www.amazon.com/Poniie-PN2000-Electricity-Electrical-Consumption/dp/B0777H8MS8

[bdunham7]

And just getting the voltage from the battery is sufficient in many cases.

OK, so for an AA Duracell used in a momentary medium-high drain (which I presume is what you have with a urinal flusher), what OCV voltages are good and bad?

[AVGresponding]

Are there better tools for battery testing? yes? But if the choice is a single device to do all the above I'd pick the Fluke 101 too.

I don't know if 'single device' is a hard requirement here, but I really have to protest that ANY standard DMM with standard test leads is just a bad choice for either task.  Testing alkaline batteries OCV doesn't work and recent discusssions here have pointed out that using OCV is even more pointless than I'd previously imagined.  Probing wall sockets with test leads is also a fairly wretched way to do it, as you often have difficulty making contact and may wrongly assume that the socket is dead.  Any awkwardness or obstruction in getting to the socket makes that 3X worse.  And then there are some hazards as well--the accidental insertion of the leads into the amp jacks (not a problem with the 101, of course), accidentally touching the probe tips (note that the 101 has long, uninsulated probes) and even the possibility of shorting the socket internally.

The tools I've proposed are what works easily and safely in my experience.  The DMM won't work for the first task and sucks for the second.  And if you want to read the voltage at the socket for some reason, get a Kill-a-Watt type device that will even let you test under load.

https://www.amazon.com/Poniie-PN2000-Electricity-Electrical-Consumption/dp/B0777H8MS8

And just getting the voltage from the battery is sufficient in many cases.

OK, so for an AA Duracell used in a momentary medium-high drain (which I presume is what you have with a urinal flusher), what OCV voltages are good and bad?

The OP says they want it for hotel maintenance, checking room sockets etc, those aren't going to be access impeded, though my personal choice would be a dedicated plug-in tester, which would also give you the status of the loop impedance (where appropriate), polarity, and the CPC. The one I use also has the ability to trip the RCD (GFCI). A multimeter won't tell you these things, necessarily.

AA alkaline in such an application are probably good above around 1.4v OC, but it's one of those "suck it and see" situations where experience tells you if it's good; ie you learn pretty quickly where the cutoff voltage is by observation.

[Fungus]

OK, so for an AA Duracell used in a momentary medium-high drain (which I presume is what you have with a urinal flusher), what OCV voltages are good and bad?

I'll know after I've looked at three or four of them.

PS: A "battery tester" won't be any better because it doesn't know the load or the cutoff voltage of those devices - you'll have to measure three or four of them to figure it out just the same as a multimeter.

[Someone]

Are there better tools for battery testing? yes? But if the choice is a single device to do all the above I'd pick the Fluke 101 too.

I don't know if 'single device' is a hard requirement here,

That's pretty much what the OP wrote verbatim. So rather than dismissing any discussion on that basis, why not just as "ok, but perhaps 2 devices would be better for you?". Instead you sure seem to be writing a lot to justify your imagined position for the OP and defend it agains any alternative view points, without actually checking back with the OP as to what they want.

Looks like most of us here see the point in using a single multimeter for these different tasks.

[Pcmaker]

I'll also be using it to check fuses and contactors, troubleshooting control boxes, but I'll be using it for checking batteries and outlets, most of the time

[themadhippy]

If your going near mains id trust the flukes cat rating much more than an equivalent priced wonhunglo device

[bdunham7]

That's pretty much what the OP wrote verbatim. So rather than dismissing any discussion on that basis, why not just as "ok, but perhaps 2 devices would be better for you?". Instead you sure seem to be writing a lot to justify your imagined position for the OP and defend it agains any alternative view points, without actually checking back with the OP as to what they want.

The OP originally merely asked whether a Fluke 101 is a genuine product.  I've never seen him state an explicit preference for having only one device.  I'm a bit taken aback at the resistance to my observation that a DMM with standard probes is awkward for probing US-style NEMA 5-15R sockets.  I've done a fair bit of this and it took me awhile to realize that there were better ways.  Seriously, for those of you in the US, try it both ways.

Looks like most of us here see the point in using a single multimeter for these different tasks.

Then why not recommend a DMM that will actually do both things properly?  I did, in my first reply.

[bdunham7]

If your going near mains id trust the flukes cat rating much more than an equivalent priced wonhunglo device

True, but I'd worry more about the probes than the meter.  Even with the D830 crapster you're far more likely to have a probing accident than you are to experience a meter failure due to transients.  And Klein is not in the UNI-T/Aneng/Kaiweets class--they're legit.

[bdunham7]

I'll also be using it to check fuses and contactors, troubleshooting control boxes, but I'll be using it for checking batteries and outlets, most of the time

If you need everything to be in one device, then look at the Klein DMM I mentioned above.  And make sure you aren't working in any 3-phase panels or anything like that.

If you are probing building wiring in anything other than the outside face of wall sockets, you really should have shielded leads. These are insulated down to the very tip to avoid the accidents that can happen with the longer bare probes.  The leads included with the Klein MM325 have these shields.  Edit:  To be clear, the Fluke 101 kits also include these shields.  You can't use the shields when probing a US wall socket fromthe front, so my objections to this practice stand.  Here's a picture to illustrate this:



If you do decide on a DMM and you're willing to heed my advice to buy a DMM that actually does both things properly, this kit has the Klein DMM I mentioned above as well as a version of the receptacle tester, all for only $5 more.  That way you can do it both ways and compare.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Klein-Tools-Test-Kit-with-Multimeter-Non-Contact-Volt-Tester-Receptacle-Tester-69149P/318617418

[bdunham7]

I'll know after I've looked at three or four of them.

PS: A "battery tester" won't be any better because it doesn't know the load or the cutoff voltage of those devices - you'll have to measure three or four of them to figure it out just the same as a multimeter.

Read this short thread:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/battery-voltage-reduces-the-longer-it-is-being-mm-voltage-tested/msg4930432/#msg4930432

He's getting an OCV of 1.38V on a "very, very dead" AA Duracell.  The same cell measured virtually zero on the actual battery test range of one of his meters.  The point of the thread was that even a 1M vs 10M load was enough to draw the cell voltage down, even though that would involve less than 1µA of current. 

I have two AA Duracells sitting on my desk that I removed from something.  They register as 'low' but not 'dead' on my analog battery tester and I get 3.6mA with the Harbor Freight D830, which is just below the minimum of 4.0mA for a pass.  So the cells are low, almost dead but probably still good enough to operate many devices.  They'll put out over 700mA into a short circuit.  They'll likely still operate a urinal flusher.  Both of them measure 1.25V open circuit. 

I don't use OCV to test alkaline cells, so I don't know how common this issue is.  The OP might have to make some observations about how a particular level reading correlates with loss of function in the flushers. The Amprobe device I recommended uses a 4R load with a cutoff of 1.0V for "good" and 0.9V for "dead".  The one I have uses a 25R load and 1.15V for "good" and 1.0V for "dead".  Might they disagree on a marginal case?  Maybe, but they probably both would make the right call the vast majority of the time.  OCV, on the other hand, clearly fails us in the above example.

[BrokenYugo]

I'd sooner teach someone to bounce test a AA than expect them to use a DMM and the usual probes. It's just awkward, same with probing a NEMA 5-15R with ordinary probes, it isn't easy and what you see is mostly useless information anyway, a plug in tester is sufficient.

I keep a small toolkit just for handyman level residential electrical work, the only test gear is a non contact probe and a plug in 3 neon tester, I need to know if power is present and on which wire(s), finer detail is generally the power company's responsibility.

[BeBuLamar]

Well I use the DMM to check battery all the time. If I get 1.38V I would toss it.
As for checking the outlet if I do it all the time I would take a pair of test leads and wire them in a plug. But since I don't do that all the time I just use the test probes as is. I don't see any problem with that. I much prefer that than a plug with the light or a non contact device.

[bdunham7]

Well I use the DMM to check battery all the time. If I get 1.38V I would toss it.

You might be landfilling a battery with >1000 flushes left in it!  I'll take one of my 1.25V 'almost dead' batteries and put it in a small single-cell LED flashlight and see how long it goes--and I'll report back.
Edit:  So I did that and the battery lasted 2 hours before the light was dim enough to not be useful.  The battery measured 0.99OCV and just into the read 'dead' zone on the tester.  This is one of those cheapo single-cell boosted LED models that draws about 1A initially and then slowly gets dimmer and draws less as the battery depletes.  It was drawing about 250mA, so the battery had ~500mA left, or a bit less than 20%, at 1.25OCV.  So if you throw away a battery at 1.38OCV, it might have a third or more of it's life left, or it might be completely depleted.  The battery tester, OTOH, seems to give consistently correct results. YMMV.

I don't see any problem with that. I much prefer that than a plug with the light or a non contact device.

A modern tamper-resistant outlet will change your mind in a hurry.  But seriously, what does everyone have against the 3-light testers?  They test all three lines at once and put a small load on the circuit which eliminates the "ghost voltage" issue. And they automatically spot miswired outlets whereas you really have to pay attention to notice when using a DMM.  Also, unless your DMM has Lo-Z it is susceptible to a false reading due to a spider or a tiny bit of leakage.

[themadhippy]

And they automatically spot miswired outlets

everyone ive owned wont show neutral earth reversed,which can be fun when  trying to track down the reason your rcd keeps randomly tripping

I would take a pair of test leads and wire them in a plug

or buy a proper adaptor ,uk version but id guess theres an american variant

[wasedadoc]

And they automatically spot miswired outlets

everyone ive owned wont show neutral earth reversed,which can be fun when  trying to track down the reason your rcd keeps randomly tripping

True enough but a DMM fails there too.

[mwb1100]

I've been sorta following along this thread.  I'm no electrician, but I've wired up some outlets before.  Incorrectly at least once.

While trying to learn a little more about this outlet checking stuff I came across this Fluke Application Note (that is no longer on Fluke's site for whatever reason) that might be of interest to some people here:

  - https://www.transcat.com/media/pdf/power_problems_receptacle.pdf

[Bud]

My Logitech wireless mouse works down to 0.8V. The used AA batteries I pull from other devices I save for that mouse.

[bdunham7]

While trying to learn a little more about this outlet checking stuff I came across this Fluke Application Note (that is no longer on Fluke's site for whatever reason) that might be of interest to some people here:

  - https://www.transcat.com/media/pdf/power_problems_receptacle.pdf

That's good info, but unless you have a large load on the circuit, your neutral drop voltage should be much less than 2V.  And if it is a balanced 'home run' circuit (shared neutral for circuits on opposite phases), it could be close to zero even with large loads.  And if you have a small N-G voltage, the difference between L-N and L-G is going to be tough to spot.  Just to try it, I used a Fluke 27 to check out my garage socket with a fridge and freezer (both running) on a circuit that is a fairly long distance from the panel and even goes through an unbonded sub-panel.  I got 0.23V N-G, 118.5 L-G and 118.2 L-N.  So it works out, but that's only a few counts on the meter.  A little noise, a shorter circuit, less load or a crappier meter and it will be an iffy proposition to detect a problem.  Unless perhaps you carry a space heater around with you.

Reversing N and G would be very unusual in the US context.  You're much more likely to see an open/missing G or the same wire used for N and G because someone installed a grounded plug into an old house without ground wires and figured N was good enough.  But I suppose some fool can manage to make any mistake imaginable.

[Someone]

That's pretty much what the OP wrote verbatim. So rather than dismissing any discussion on that basis, why not just as "ok, but perhaps 2 devices would be better for you?". Instead you sure seem to be writing a lot to justify your imagined position for the OP and defend it agains any alternative view points, without actually checking back with the OP as to what they want.

The OP originally merely asked whether a Fluke 101 is a genuine product.  I've never seen him state an explicit preference for having only one device.

Do we really need to pick apart the OP to such a degree and make several pages of arguing about what they intended? seems like you insist.... so the OP verbatim:

I was looking for a cheapest, small multimeter and I found this on Amazon

its under 50 bucks but it claims to be a Fluke brand multimeter. Not much features, but it's got everything I need. I need it mostly for testing regular batteries, continuity and testing 120v to 240v electrical things.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HE6MIJY

OP says they are looking for a cheap and small multimeter, and points to one that has "everything I need". Then goes on to add some context which explains clearly what their routine uses are. A great post that deserves some good replies.

How is that not a request for validation of their choice, based on that information? nowhere is there any hint they are looking for suggestions of other equipment to do the job or that multiple devices are being considered (which is what you have inferred and seem to be intent on doing).

Looks like most of us here see the point in using a single multimeter for these different tasks.

Then why not recommend a DMM that will actually do both things properly?  I did, in my first reply.

Your first suggestion in a pile of wordiness is for a meter that is (by your own verbosity) not suitable for their tasks. The next suggestion you made is for something behind a geoblock which I cannot even see to make any comment on. Opening with something not suitable is the kind of misleading and meandering nonsense you are filling this thread with, but then come back and claim it was entirely on topic and appropriate.

The problem we are having with you here is the string of "arguments" you make out of thin air, by coming back and trying so say our contributions are somehow invalid/incorrect/misleading/improper.

OP asked if that fluke is real and would do their stated jobs, we agreed it was a good choice. Yet you are individually quoting/replying to specific people with a [imagined] disagreement that is only in your head (and now spewing across the forum and drowning out the content). Other posters have been able to make a similar suggestion to the OP that they could consider alternatives in a polite manner without directly quoting and dismissing others opinions.

But do continue to escalate this for another few pages of noise.

[bdunham7]

nowhere is there any hint they are looking for suggestions of other equipment to do the job

Sir, this is EEVBlog.  And in any case, even if it were Moe's Pub, is a thoughtful suggestion from somebody specifically experienced in these specific tasks so out of line?

Your first suggestion in a pile of wordiness is for a meter that is (by your own verbosity) not suitable for their tasks.

Please.  First, I actually answered his questions before my egregious barrage of contentious verbosity.  Then, the OP did say "cheapest small multimeter" and I linked one.  I referred to it as an atrocity and it was quite clear that I wasn't actually recommending he get one, but still it can actually do both requested functions as opposed to the F101 which IMO cannot.  I then linked the DMM I actually recommended.  If that is the link you cannot see, it is the Klein MM325, or better yet a kit with that DMM, an NCV tester and a 3-light socket tester for $5 more.  I didn't recommend a non-DMM solution until he listed the two specific tasks he would be doing the most.  He can get the DMM, the Amprobe BAT-250 battery tester and a 3-light socket tester for about the same price as the Fluke 101. 

The problem we are having with you here is the string of "arguments" you make out of thin air, by coming back and trying so say our contributions are somehow invalid/incorrect/misleading/improper.

The factual bases for my objections to the Fluke 101 as the proper tool here are clear enough.  If you want less noise, try responding to those instead of dismissing my "arguments" as thin air.  In case you missed it, the two main issues (based on my experience) are 1) testing AA cells without a load (OCV) can give unreliable results and 2) back-probing US walls sockets (specifically NEMA 5-15R) with standard test probes is awkward, slightly hazardous and sometimes can give false negative readings due to not making a good connection with the internal contacts.   Additionally there is the Low-Z/ghost voltage issue. Sure, you could use the Fluke 101, but IMO the other solutions are much better. Tell me why I'm wrong on any of those counts.

[Axtman]

I bought a Fluke 101 the other day off Amazon. The seller was Fluke in Everett Washington (USA). It was a little over $50 with tax.

It is a great meter that I will take to garage sales and swap meets. I wanted a reliable meter with auto-power off and small pocket size. This one fills the bill!

My "daily driver" is a Fluke 87V.

[Someone]

The factual bases for my objections to the Fluke 101 as the proper tool here are clear enough.  If you want less noise, try responding to those instead of dismissing my "arguments" as thin air.  In case you missed it, the two main issues (based on my experience) are 1) testing AA cells without a load (OCV) can give unreliable results and 2) back-probing US walls sockets (specifically NEMA 5-15R) with standard test probes is awkward, slightly hazardous and sometimes can give false negative readings due to not making a good connection with the internal contacts.   Additionally there is the Low-Z/ghost voltage issue. Sure, you could use the Fluke 101, but IMO the other solutions are much better.

Tell me why I'm wrong on any of those counts.

Because you infer most of that as an issue for the OP when it is your experience (of some other situations) and not clearly applicable to the OP. Say that all you like but coming in and sniping others answers as incorrect without any of that context or explanation is both misleading, and inflammatory. Notice how the OP has returned yet not engaged on that or gone in the direction you are pushing?

Someone (the OP) asking about a $50 meter as they are looking for something budget/cheap:

I was looking for a cheapest, small multimeter

... and small, is unlikely to be considering buying a set of probes for $50 or more (like say TP1) or a meter for 2x-3x-4x the price. Mentioning small, they are unlikely to be interested in a bulkier collection of other devices to do the stated task.

Right there stated in the opening post yet you're digging in and insisting or arguing on what you want to talk about as if it affects the OP (your justification). Your issues with the suggestion of a Fluke 101 were not clear and stated up front, they're dripping out as you continue to blather on and pollute the thread.

[bpan]

I find it strange that you would have issues testing a socket with test leads. I do it all the time. But I use leads that are exposed. Shove them in and the tension of the socket holds them there just like it would on a plug.

[bdunham7]

Right there stated in the opening post yet you're digging in and insisting or arguing on what you want to talk about as if it affects the OP (your justification). Your issues with the suggestion of a Fluke 101 were not clear and stated up front, they're dripping out as you continue to blather on and pollute the thread.

I don't want to pollute the thread further by responding blow-by-blow, but I really don't know what you are reading here.  My specific issue with the F101 was stated clearly yet briefly in the first paragraph of my first reply.  Disagreeing with forum members that I respect and providing a reason that can be discussed is hardly sniping.  I'd expect them to consider what I say and change their minds if they agree with new information or ideas that they hadn't thought of--just as I would.  Or, they can tell me why I'm wrong.

One of the options I suggested to the OP was, in fact, a good, small and cheap DMM.  I only made other suggestions when he clarified what he was doing. Everything I said was directed at helping the OP, who clearly may not even really know the right questions to ask, come up with a good solution for his use case.  None of my suggested strategies would cost more than $50 total. If you'd like to refute my underlying reasons or make a different suggestion, go ahead.

Hopefully the OP is a lurker turned active user who already realizes we're a bunch of opinionated gasbags. 

[bdunham7]

I find it strange that you would have issues testing a socket with test leads. I do it all the time. But I use leads that are exposed. Shove them in and the tension of the socket holds them there just like it would on a plug.

Yes, a good portion of the time that works.  But there are many different designs.  At least some of the time I find that I can't get the probe in and I have to hold both probes with one hand, other times I've observed a bad connection unless I hold the probe to one side.  These are all sockets that appeared to work properly with a regular plug.  Then there are plugs that are obstructed or hard to reach--behind furniture or something--and there isn't enough room for a test probe but there is for a plug tester.  And finally, there are the new tamper-resistant plugs which totally defeat the probes, just as they're designed to do.  I'm using normal TL71 and TL75 probes.  As I say, YMMV.

[Pcmaker]

test leads don't work too well in outlets, I just wiggle it side to side until I get contact