EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: Felix82 on December 06, 2020, 07:46:58 pm
-
Hello,
I would like to buy myself a new handheld DMM for Christmas.
Up to now I had used a 20 year old, very cheap multimeter that no longer met my requirements (slow, inaccurate, just annoying).
I would now like to buy a device that I can rely on for the next 10-20 years.
I have recently started working in embedded SW development area and will have a lot to do with various microcontrollers both professionally and privately.
I would like to have a multimeter, which measures fast and accurately and is hopefully prepared for possible future requirements.
So far I have on the shortlist:
- Brymen 869s
- Fluke 87V
- Keysight U1272A
- Gossen METRAHIT X-TRA M240A
Due to the very good price-performance ratio, I would tend towards brymen at the moment.
Would I have a decisive advantage with one of the other mentioned, better known brand-name devices?
What would be your recommendation - which one would you take?
Best regards!
-
Hello again,
I would be very happy to hear some experiences from people who own one or maybe even more of the mentioned DMMs. Just reading the data sheets is not everything. Often there are just a few "specials" that only become apparent in practice.
-
For µC circuits the need for the DMM are not very high. Usually it's low voltage and DC. A point may be measuring relatively low currents and good probes with fine tips.
It would be more like a DSO as the instrument one sometimes wants to have, even if only a cheap/slow (like 20 or 50 MHz) one.
-
Hello again,
I would be very happy to hear some experiences from people who own one or maybe even more of the mentioned DMMs. Just reading the data sheets is not everything. Often there are just a few "specials" that only become apparent in practice.
There is quite a bit of information about all of these if you search the forums, and sometimes these discussions go sideways, but OK, I'll bite and throw my hat into the ring.
The Brymen BM869s could be described as fast and relatively feature packed. For constant electronics bench use I think the 100 hour battery life is a bit short and you need to remove it from the rubber holster to replace the 9V battery. It's slightly annoying and tipsy to operate one handed due to the small/stiff selector switch and small kick stand. The LCD screen is nice and large. A computer connection is available, but the Brymen software is questionable, so you'll probably use HKJ's software with it.
I think the Fluke 87V is more of an older design field DMM, so for bench use you'll miss out on any kind of interface options and it defaults to 6,000 count mode. You'll always be switching it to 20,000 count mode because those extra digits are pretty much spot on. I don't think it would be an ideal choice in your case even though it is absolutely a solid DMM.
The U1272A could also be described as fast. 300 hour battery life from 4 AAA batteries. The U1282A has slightly better specs, and 800 hours with 4 AA batteries. IR-USB and IR-Bluetooth interface options are available and you have quite a list of software to choose from as well. The retail U1282A will come with the IR-USB interface included. Maybe do some more research on the U127x and U128x product lineup to see if a specific aspect jumps out at you?
I don't have any Gossen DMMs, so I'll not comment other than I hear decent things about them.
You didn't mention the 121GW. Despite being "slow" I still find myself liking it for many tasks (on and off the bench). It's compact yet has some relatively unique features (like VA mode), good battery life, and the selector switch turns easily and has OFF at each end. You also get built-in Bluetooth which I use with Android and Windows devices for quick and dirty historical graphing.
Be sure to consider a regular bench-style DMM as well. Being able to just hit one or two buttons instead of constantly rotating a selector switch back and forth is quite nice. No batteries to worry about. Display clarity can also be much better since you're not fighting with overhead light reflections. Typically you'll be able to connect it to a computer for continuous high-speed logging and remote control.
Generally speaking, I like the idea of a bench DMM along with a handheld, or two handhelds with somewhat unique, but non-overlapping features.
-
Hello:
I have been very impressed with the Keysight offerings. I bought both the 1282A and 1272A a long time ago. I do like the long battery life of the 1282A, but it is a big meter. Both are feature rich, and when I bought them were significantly cheaper than the Fluke’s comparable handheld DMM (this may have changed). A friend of mine just picked up a 1272A about three months ago, and he too was getting far better pricing than the competing Fluke. I would check around as there are sales often, and you can realize substantial savings.
There is nothing I have not found as of yet from everyday bench/development work either of these meters cannot do. They come with decent probes, unlike Fluke. As others have stated, despite the better probes, I still like ProbeMaster Spring Loaded probes so if you can save a few dollars by buying a meter less pricey than Fluke and invest in some quality probes, all the better.
Dont get me wrong, I like Fluke DMM’s. I have used them for years, but their pricing has kind of gotten out of control. I feel both the Keysight’s that I bought to replace a Fluke are of equal if not, slightly better quality for less money.
I wish I could comment on the other brands, but I have not used them. I hope this helps you narrow down your choice.
Rich
-
Due to the very good price-performance ratio, I would tend towards brymen at the moment.
Would I have a decisive advantage with one of the other mentioned, better known brand-name devices?
No.
-
J-R did a very good summary, which extends to my experience as well with a few additional details (I own a 87V, a U1273A and a U1282A).
The three models (extending to the U1272A) have autohold, a feature that holds the reading and beeps at you when a reading is stable. I use that quite often during diagnosis, but YMMV.
The three models have a decent amount of features for diagnosis, but the Keysights have a strong edge in the following categories:
- AC+DC : they can measure both components of a measurement and accurate up to 100kHz (87V is 20kHz)
- Dual readings: they can display frequency, duty cycle, temperature or even the AC or DC component of the main measurement. It can be handy.
- Wider ranges of resistance and capacitance: both can get to hundreds of M\$\Omega\$ and tens of mF.
- Some extra features are low-impedance voltage measurements (Zlow) and differential ohms (Smart Ohms) for the U1272A. Non-contact voltage, very high input impedance (1G\$\Omega\$), square wave output and remote control for the U1282A.
Going for the 87V are:
- Incredibly well built. The robustness is very palpable.
- The bargraph has a very useful median mode, where the zero is at the center of the range.
- It has one of the best diode mode voltages around (8V).
- Its beep is very sensible. The U1272A beeps at power on (I dislike it) and the U1282A is extremely loud and beeps frantically at events - especially the input alerts.
- It is the fastest of the bunch, although both this and the U1272A are much faster than the slow U1282A.
- Uses a 9V battery. The low quality of AA and AAA batteries of the other two are a Damocles' sword on your head, unless you move to other types of cells.
All that said, my favourite meter is the U1273A due to its overall arrangement of features and robustness.
Also, the BM869 is extremely well regarded around and I have seen it only has the absence of an auto-hold as the detracting factor. Others may comment further. Brymen is an excellent and reputable brand as well, with excellent quality (I have a BM857).
All in all, if you are looking to buy anything that will last you for 20 years, don't be too concerned about the upfront cost - the total cost of ownership will dillute quite well over the years.
-
I have another candidate: Metrix MX3293B or 3293B
https://catalog.chauvin-arnoux.com/fr_de/mtx3292b.html
It has 100.000 counts, is very good readable, quick and a well built.
-
I had been looking at Metrix for a long time. I know of no one local to me who has one. Would love to see one in person.
-
I have another candidate: Metrix MX3293B or 3293B
https://catalog.chauvin-arnoux.com/fr_de/mtx3292b.html
It has 100.000 counts, is very good readable, quick and a well built.
I have mtx3293 for a little bit more than a year now.
It is not 100 000, but 99 000 display.
Fast ranging..
It has great low ohm mode (up to 100 Ohm, with 10mA current).
Current socket is single for all current ranges, and meter will auto-switch to current measurement when you plug in the probe. It also has high voltage and current diode test mode (27V 10ma) for testing zeners and leds..
I can test strings of several LEDs in series....
It also has custom current clamp/shunt modes, math, specifications mode, VA mode, logging,
RTD and TC temperature measurements etc etc..
It has most of the functions of a benchtop meters.
At this moment it is my primary meter on the bench, with BM869.
It is killing batteries real quick though, so not a carry around meter...
BM869 has much larger display, better battery life, similar accuracy..It is bigger too.
-
Thanks for your numerous comments and recommendations so far!
The Metrix really looks very interesting, but is above my planned budget.
Fluke 87V will probably fall out for my application.
The Keysight U1282A would be great in terms of features, but it's probably too big/heavy and also relatively expensive.
I would also have liked to hear something about the Gossen DMMs. Maybe someone will write something about it...
So it will probably be a decision between Keysight U1272A (~410€) and Brymen BM869s (~210€).
I will go into more detail about the features of each multimeter.
-
I think you will be happy with the both of those choices. Wish I could give you more information about the Brymen, but I have only seen reviews of the Meter. I do know another member for the forum, Joe Smith has done extensive reviews of Bremen’s to include testing them. It may be worth looking at his YouTube channel before making a choice.
For some reason, Brymen is not too available here in the United States. I think maybe they make Meters for another company who distributes them here. Their lack availability from my typical “go to” vendors was the only reason I ruled them out. If you go with the Keysight, I am sure you will be happy. The 1272 is one of my favorite meters.
-
I would also have liked to hear something about the Gossen DMMs. Maybe someone will write something about it...
If they don't it's because nobody here owns/uses one. They're more overpriced than Flukes, and it seems like they're not even as good.
If I was going to overspend on a meter I'd get a Hioki. Probably a DT4282. :-DMM
-
For some reason, Brymen is not too available here in the United States. I think maybe they make Meters for another company who distributes them here. Their lack availability from my typical “go to” vendors was the only reason I ruled them out. If you go with the Keysight, I am sure you will be happy. The 1272 is one of my favorite meters.
AJ3G, Brymen meters in the US are sold under the Greenlee brand. You will see several models in their product line.
So far my list of equivalents is:
| Greenlee | Brymen |
| DM200A | BM251S |
| DM210A | BM252S |
| DM510A | BM257S |
| DM810A | BM822S |
| DM820A | BM827S |
| DM830A | BM829S |
| DM860A | BM869S |
-
I have recently started working in embedded SW development area and will have a lot to do with various microcontrollers both professionally and privately.
I would like to have a multimeter, which measures fast and accurately and is hopefully prepared for possible future requirements.
I consider the step up in performance to be multimeters which have a consistent 10 megohm input resistance which is usually *not* the case with handheld automatic ranging multimeters, and it can be difficult to know from the manufacturer's specifications because they often lie; if they say 10 megohms but give no tolerance specification, then it likely varies between 9 and 10 megohms depending on the range. This is simply because of how the input resistive divider usually works to support automatic ranging.
Why does it matter? If the input resistance varies than it causes additional errors between ranges if the source resistance is not low enough. This does not matter when measuring power supply voltages, the AC line, or batteries, but it does with analog circuits where source resistance is often not low. It is one thing if the multimeter reads consistently albeit annoyingly low, and that can be compensated for, but another if it reads differently depending on the range. (1)
Brymen 869s - 10 megohms specified but no tolerance.
Fluke 87V - Could find no specification but notice that it is an "Industrial" multimeter.
Keysight U1272A - 10 megohms "nominal" but this is another multimeter designed for industrial applications.
Gossen METRAHIT X-TRA M240A - Greater than 9 megohms. This is the only meter here not lying.
So these meters are all intended for general purpose applications and *not* electronics, but maybe that is what you are looking for.
Beyond that, of those the METRAHIT has the best terminal arrangement; how do you use the 10 amp range on the others with a 3/4" banana jack? Also I might look for one with a built in thermocouple socket (2) which is a rare feature these days like the B&K 2706B, which also happens to have the good terminal arrangement but is definitely more of an electronics meter than an industrial one since it lacks high current measurements.
Battery life on modern multimeters is pretty horrid also. What happened to multimeters with 2000 hour battery life?
(1) This goes double for multimeters where the input range selection is independent of the selected range. Some automatically range switch based on only the applied voltage and not on the selected range, which presents quite a puzzle for how to measure the input resistance on different ranges.
(2) The ones which use a banana jack adapter are less accurate and the adapter is something else to get lost.
-
David, depending on the voltage level, the U1282A may be for you. It can be configured for >1G\$\Omega\$ on the mV range.
Brymen 869s - 10 megohms specified but no tolerance.
Fluke 87V - Could find no specification but notice that it is an "Industrial" multimeter.
Keysight U1272A - 10 megohms "nominal" but this is another multimeter designed for industrial applications.
Gossen METRAHIT X-TRA M240A - Greater than 9 megohms. This is the only meter here not lying.
Well, the Gossen may not be "lying", but is as "useful" as the others. "Greater than" carries as much tolerance as "nominal" or the absence of tolerance.
-
I consider the step up in performance to be multimeters which have a consistent 10 megohm input resistance which is usually *not* the case with handheld automatic ranging multimeters, and it can be difficult to know from the manufacturer's specifications because they often lie; if they say 10 megohms but give no tolerance specification, then it likely varies between 9 and 10 megohms depending on the range. This is simply because of how the input resistive divider usually works to support automatic ranging.
Why does it matter? If the input resistance varies than it causes additional errors between ranges if the source resistance is not low enough. This does not matter when measuring power supply voltages, the AC line, or batteries, but it does with analog circuits where source resistance is often not low. It is one thing if the multimeter reads consistently albeit annoyingly low, and that can be compensated for, but another if it reads differently depending on the range. (1)
Brymen 869s - 10 megohms specified but no tolerance.
Fluke 87V - Could find no specification but notice that it is an "Industrial" multimeter.
Keysight U1272A - 10 megohms "nominal" but this is another multimeter designed for industrial applications.
Gossen METRAHIT X-TRA M240A - Greater than 9 megohms. This is the only meter here not lying.
The Fluke 87V (AFAIK and I'm pretty sure) and the 289 (I'm completely sure) have a consistent 10M input. Not a precise, calibrated 10M, but pretty close and it doesn't change. I've had several meters, including a BK bench meter, that change the way you state, but they have 10M on most ranges and then on some lower ranges, they have 11.11M. I haven't worked out what that means they are using for internal dividers. The only thing I can think of is some arrangement with an 11.1M resistor and then a divider with a total of 100M that is switched in parallel with it.
This is all simply a good argument to at least keep an old 8842A or 34401A on your bench.
-
I actually measured it once:
BM869S:
DC:
500mV 10,043 Mohm
5V 11,13 Mohm
50V 10,12 Mohm
500V 10,025 Mohm
1000V 10,012 Mohm
AC (500 mV range is also DC coupled)
500 mV 10,043
MTX 3293 actually shows input resistance on screen as you change ranges (didn't measure it though):
100 mV 10,012 Mohm
1 V 11 Mohm
10 V 10,5 Mohm
100 V 10,05 Mohm
1000 V 10,0 Mohm
-
The Fluke 87V (AFAIK and I'm pretty sure) and the 289 (I'm completely sure) have a consistent 10M input. Not a precise, calibrated 10M, but pretty close and it doesn't change.
This is all simply a good argument to at least keep an old 8842A or 34401A on your bench.
Scratch that! For some reason it occurred to me that I hadn't checked the 289, but rather some other meter that I forget which. So I checked again and for the 289 it is:
5V: 11M
50V: 10.1M
500V: 10.0M
1000V: 10.0M
And they list the spec as "10M" without any further qualification. :-- The only issue for me is that it makes it problematic to use a high voltage probe properly.
-
This ICL7103 application note shows what is going on and why:
https://www.renesas.com/eu/en/document/apn/an028-building-auto-ranging-dmm-icl7103aicl8052a (https://www.renesas.com/eu/en/document/apn/an028-building-auto-ranging-dmm-icl7103aicl8052a)
There used to be a better reference online but I cannot find it.
Instead of a decade divider where the 9M, 900k, 90k, 9k, etc. resistors are in series to produce a constant 10M input and a tap is selected, the divider is 10M, 1.1111M, 101.11k, 10.01k, and 1.0001k, and a grounded switch selects a tap to make a two resistor divider, and the input resistance changes with range. There is also another design which produces an input resistance between 9M and 10M.
Measuring the input resistance directly can be non-trivial for two reasons. As I said above, the automatic ranging multimeter may set the divider based on input voltage instead of manual range setting; late Beckman meters do this which probably carried over to Amprobe and Wavetech. The other problem is that charge injection from the meter to be measured will interfere with the measurement when both meters are operating at close to the same sampling rate which will almost always be the case for 50 and 60 Hz rejection.
-
Instead of a decade divider where the 9M, 900k, 90k, 9k, etc. resistors are in series to produce a constant 10M input and a tap is selected, the divider is 10M, 1.1111M, 101.11k, 10.01k, and 1.0001k, and a grounded switch selects a tap to make a two resistor divider, and the input resistance changes with range. There is also another design which produces an input resistance between 9M and 10M.
Thanks, that clears up something I occasionally wondered about. It also explains why these meters have a separate mV position instead of autoranging down into it. I had no trouble measuring the resistances of my F289 and F116--although there was a little noise I could clearly see that their behavior exactly matched the ratios you mentioned. I guess for HV measurements I'll have to use the 50 or 60V ranges and live with a 1% built in error.
-
I guess for HV measurements I'll have to use the 50 or 60V ranges and live with a 1% built in error.
That is essentially what Fluke says to do in their HV probe instructions, but I first ran across the issue when using a Fluke HV probe. I had to switch to using a multimeter with constant 10 megohm input resistance to get proper results for what I was doing.
It also explains many instances of inconsistent results with automatic ranging handheld meters many years ago before I knew what was doing on. I make it a habit now to mark the input resistance on my multimeters so I will not make that mistake again, but it comes down to all handheld automatic ranging meters being suspect.
This is another reason bench meters are sometimes preferred.
-
This is another reason bench meters are sometimes preferred.
Well, here are two example that I'm sure of (and are acknowledged in their manuals)
BK391A Handheld, manual ranging, 20,000 count. 10M on all DC inputs, 10M + blocking cap on all AC inputs
BK2831A Bench, auto ranging, 20,000 count. 11.1M on 2V input, >10.1M on 20V, >10M on 200 & 1000V. 1M (or so) on all AC inputs.
I should have kept the 391A. It was accurate with the HV probe on all inputs, AC and DC.
-
I am still on the lookout for a handheld meter better than my 20+ year old Beckman RMS225 and Tektronix DMM916. For some measurements, I have no choice but to use either my ancient Tektronix bench meters or my HP 3478a, and the HP is high impedance on its two lowest voltage ranges making it unsuitable sometimes also.
It is ironic that more modern and higher precision handheld meters are also the very same ones which suffer from variable input resistance which compromises being able to take full advantage of their higher precision. The measurements where I would want 20,000+ counts are often also the ones where a variable input resistance is not acceptable.
-
This is another reason bench meters are sometimes preferred.
Well, here are two example that I'm sure of (and are acknowledged in their manuals)
BK391A Handheld, manual ranging, 20,000 count. 10M on all DC inputs, 10M + blocking cap on all AC inputs
BK2831A Bench, auto ranging, 20,000 count. 11.1M on 2V input, >10.1M on 20V, >10M on 200 & 1000V. 1M (or so) on all AC inputs.
I should have kept the 391A. It was accurate with the HV probe on all inputs, AC and DC.
For that purpose and if specs are right, BK391A definitely would be perfect for use with high voltage probe.
I would venture a guess that many manual ranging meters would be constant input resistance..
-
For that purpose and if specs are right, BK391A definitely would be perfect for use with high voltage probe.
I would venture a guess that many manual ranging meters would be constant input resistance..
Hah, you can say that again: IIRC the Flukes 8020A and 8060A are pretty spot on.
Even my Aneng mini (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-aneng-m1-multimter!/msg2163253/#msg2163253) is pretty spot on! 0.9991M\$\Omega\$ on all ranges
-
For that purpose and if specs are right, BK391A definitely would be perfect for use with high voltage probe.
I would venture a guess that many manual ranging meters would be constant input resistance..
Well for DC or pure AC (no bias) it was indeed. However, AC+DC might raise an issue...
Yes, I would expect most manual ranging meters to not have the impedance issue because as the link David provided shows, there's not a good reason to use a variable input divider when you have mechanical switching available. To be fair to the meter manufacturers, these autoranging 'industrial' rated DMMs are expected to both autorange quickly and withstand an awful lot of punishment. I'm sure that drives the design considerations toward a solution that can be switched very rapidly with FET analog switches.
So I just checked my F116 on the AC mode and it measures (with a DC ohmmeter) exactly, 10M--I mean 10.000xxM--on all of the AC input ranges (mV excluded for now). So, does anyone have an opinion on whether it will read accurately and consistently when measuring AC voltage with a 1000X 1G probe? Place your bets...
-
Manual range is not guarantee for fixed input impedance, many newer manual range meters are based on auto range chips/designs, but with a different program in the chip.
For a fairly stable input impedance look at Keysight U1282A, it only changes 1%, instead of 10%
-
Despite keeping at 0.5% in most ranges, my U1282A goes to 1.4% at the 6V range. Sill smaller than other units but, since the manufacturer does not provide this tolerance as a spec, anything can happen among different production runs or a redesign.
I guess the best advice is that, before you use an external unit, test your instrument. The major problem is that, if you still don't own your instrument, you need the goodwill of people in forums like these to validate and test things for you. Long live the electronics fora!
Just for reference, all the meters I tested follow the more or less the normal trend: 11M\$\Omega\$ in V, 10.1M\$\Omega\$ in tens and hundreds of volts, 10M\$\Omega\$ on 1kV and on mV. These last two depend if the meter has 1kV range and if it has high impedance mode on mV.
Amprobe AM530, Brymen BM857, Fluke 87V, Fluke 189, Richmeters RM219 (Aneng AN870), Keysight U1273A.
-
Well, the Fluke 116 did OK but not perfect on AC using the HV probe, but that has as much to do with the probe as anything else. Most of my meters, including bench models, failed quite grimly with errors of 50% or more. The issue is that the probe is a capacitive divider as well as resistive, and the input capacitance of the DMM can be anything. Also, the parasitic capacitance of the probe itself seems to vary quite a bit with temperature and humidity. The AC specs are 5% @ 60 Hz, -3db at 300Hz.
https://ctemedia.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/attachments/CT2700_datasheet.pdf
What I did find after looking at my collection of handheld instruments is that 1) the DMM that did the best with the HV probe on AC, which was also the only one to have a constant 10M input impedance on all DCV and ACV ranges. was my $20 Harbor Freight CenTech P37772, and 2) the only instrument that I had that could measure the input impedance of the mV ranges on various DMMs without turning on the clamping circuits was my old Scopemeter, which apparently uses a much smaller than normal test current/voltage, at least on all ranges above 30R. So, to go back to the OP's original query--one DMM, no matter how well featured, is always going to be lacking something. The only fix is to have a collection of them. And never throw them away. :)
[attachimg=1]
-
I'm a big user of Fluke handheld devices due to performance and the support I've gotten from them when things go wrong. I do not consider them expensive at all for professional usage, at times they may be lacking feature but then you need to consider the value of those features on other meters. Honestly if you don't buy Fluke I'd suggest buying from EEvblog simply to support the site. People get a little to wound up over brands, for most users I don't see a huge difference in the main stream meters.
For example if you need to measure capacitance or inductance you would be better off with a DE5000 in the handheld realm. The same thing goes for temperature measurement, if that becomes an important element of what you are doing you are better off with a separate meter dedicated to that usage.
Now to really ruin your day; if you are working embedded development, at a lab bench, you might be better off with a desktop meter. Modern bench tops generally support connections to a computer (which might be important for development) and have a far better user interface for the bench. Also as DAVE often states you will likely end up needing two or more meters. You don't really define what you will be developing in the embedded realm but for working at the bench I believe there is a lot of truth in this paragraph.
-
I'm a big user of Fluke handheld devices due to performance and the support I've gotten from them when things go wrong. I do not consider them expensive at all for professional usage, at times they may be lacking feature but then you need to consider the value of those features on other meters. Honestly if you don't buy Fluke I'd suggest buying from EEvblog simply to support the site. People get a little to wound up over brands, for most users I don't see a huge difference in the main stream meters.
For example if you need to measure capacitance or inductance you would be better off with a DE5000 in the handheld realm. The same thing goes for temperature measurement, if that becomes an important element of what you are doing you are better off with a separate meter dedicated to that usage.
Now to really ruin your day; if you are working embedded development, at a lab bench, you might be better off with a desktop meter. Modern bench tops generally support connections to a computer (which might be important for development) and have a far better user interface for the bench. Also as DAVE often states you will likely end up needing two or more meters. You don't really define what you will be developing in the embedded realm but for working at the bench I believe there is a lot of truth in this paragraph.
Your thinking is quite OK, if Lockheed Martin will pay for it ^-^.
Lack of features is a problem. I'm sure you wouldn't accept that Mercedes will sell you luxury car without electric windows and without central locking... Those are not necessary, right... We survived without them, back then, 20-30 years ago... Of course
Having multimeter that is MULTImeter is the point here. Handhelds are not necessarily used for most accurate measurement but to check things are in a ballpark. So measuring if temperature is 55°C +-3°C is probably going to be just fine. Even 20 USD UNI-T or ANENG will do much better than finger...
Most of the modern inexpensive handhelds also support connection to computer, and some have bigger display than some benchtops.
And they easily measure in 0.03% accuracy territory, and have most of the functions of a mid range benchtop....
Legendary Fluke warranty is a moot point. If I pay 3 times more, I can buy 3 meters from other manufacturers. Not only that means that I have more capability, but also I don't care if it gets broken..
As I said, If you have money and don't really have to care how much you're spending, there are many expensive products to buy. Gossen, Metrix, Fluke, Keysight and other big brand names..
Question is do you need them.
If you develop precision 24bit frontends for millivolt level data acquisition systems for automotive or military environments, you will probably need Fluke calibrators and Fluke or Keithley or Keysight 8.5 digit meters worth 10s of thousands of USD each.
And nothing else would be appropriate or good enough.
If you are a hobby maker, or small business, and you develop thermostats for residential control, you can go much less fancy. And for repair, checking if thermostat works fine, will be enough to just use temperature measurement from your handheld...
I personally do this for living, and my (very) small business doesn't have unlimited resources. For that reason, I have eclectic choice of instruments, from quite expensive ones to basic ones. All chosen on principle of "good enough". You upgrade as you go, when need arises. Sometimes it never does.
-
Thanks again to everyone who commented here!!
The subject seems to be a real science. :-)
I have decided to buy a Brymen BM869s because of its excellent price/performance ratio here in Germany compared to the Agilent/Keysight DMMs. If the difference hadn't been so great, I might have decided differently.
But I think the device will definitely meet my current requirements.
In any case, I have just ordered the Brymen with additional Probe Master test leads (8043SK) and am already very excited about it.
-
Felix82, congratulations on your purchase! I am pretty sure you will be happy with your new purchase. It has the potential to last you 20 years more.
-
I have decided to buy a Brymen BM869s
with additional Probe Master test leads (8043SK).
Excellent choice, I would also recommend the BM869s, if you want a 2nd DMM as a backup (for extra measurements) I do recommend the UT161E+
-
I have decided to buy a Brymen BM869s because of its excellent price/performance ratio here in Germany compared to the Agilent/Keysight DMMs. If the difference hadn't been so great, I might have decided differently.
But I think the device will definitely meet my current requirements.
:-+
The subject seems to be a real science. :-)
Now go to the Aneng store and order an 870 in the name of science. You need more than one meter and this will let you contrast and compare. :)
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33004463675.html (https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33004463675.html)
-
I think you will be happy. The ProbeMasters are excellent probes. When you get it in, be sure to provide an update.
-
I'm a big user of Fluke handheld devices due to performance and the support I've gotten from them when things go wrong. I do not consider them expensive at all for professional usage, at times they may be lacking feature but then you need to consider the value of those features on other meters. Honestly if you don't buy Fluke I'd suggest buying from EEvblog simply to support the site. People get a little to wound up over brands, for most users I don't see a huge difference in the main stream meters.
Fluke fan here as well, but I also like Brymen and HP/Agilent/Keysight. Each company has their strengths/weaknesses and so do the products.
Had an issue with a set of Fluke's modular test leads on my 87V where depending on how I wiggled them, the resistance was intermittently a bit higher than I liked. E-mailed Fluke support with my findings and serial number and the next day they sent two complete sets via 2nd day air, completely free. The new leads worked fine.
-
... the next day they sent two complete sets via 2nd day air, completely free. The new leads worked fine.
Sure, but you paid $200 up-front for those leads and you might never have needed them.
(Fluke meters cost $200 more than the competition)
-
A quick look, and it appears Keysight is catching up on pricing too. When I went to Keysight there was a distinct savings for similar features of the rival Fluke DMM. If I am not mistaking the 1282A’s I purchased two years ago are now selling with a 15% increase over my purchase price.
I was kind of hoping for competition which would have led to Fluke offering a more competitive price, but it appears as though Keysight is just escalating theirs to compensate.
Rich
-
Some people just don't want to understand why a product might be more expensive than another and no amount of conversation will change it.
-
Some people just don't want to understand why a product might be more expensive than another and no amount of conversation will change it.
Some people can see what it costs to manufacture a meter and can see similar quality meters by other manufacturers for half the price.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YW0aaED9aQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YW0aaED9aQ)
PS: I wouldn't buy a Keysight (or any other brand) with an OLED screen. It's will fail a few years from now, guaranteed.
-
Some people just don't want to understand why a product might be more expensive than another and no amount of conversation will change it.
Of course we do. It's called corporate greed..
-
I was kind of hoping for competition which would have led to Fluke offering a more competitive price
Nah, Fluke has its customers well defined, often with contracts.
They're not lowering their prices anytime soon - read the posts just up there ^^ for reasons why.
-
I hope you don't forget about "Brymen BM869 Resistance Quirk" in your choice.
-
Some people just don't want to understand why a product might be more expensive than another and no amount of conversation will change it.
Some people can see what it costs to manufacture a meter and can see similar quality meters by other manufacturers for half the price.
I finally watched his video; he seemed a bit too caught up on the stands and leads for my taste, as well as criticize the power button on the front of the 289? But overall he has some valid points.
PS: I wouldn't buy a Keysight (or any other brand) with an OLED screen. It's will fail a few years from now, guaranteed.
I have and I love it. Still kicking some ass. 8) ;D
-
Some people can see what it costs to manufacture a meter and can see similar quality meters by other manufacturers for half the price.
Yes, similar quality if you deliberately ignore or discount those characteristics such as warranty, support and so on and that the 'other' manufacturers fall short on. I won't get into the cost differences between stuff made in the US by people who are well paid, have retirement benefits, etc and those things made elsewhere by people that may or may not get all those things. Buy what you want but don't assume that those who think differently are stupid or uninformed.
Your guy in the video is obviously relishing his free Kaiweets products and is likely quite butthurt that Fluke doesn't send him review samples. Imagine doing reviews of precision measuring instruments without ever actually doing any meaningful testing of how well they measure anything. The Testo meter is several or many counts off at points in that video and I can pretty much guarantee which one is correct.
There are many legitimate criticism of Fluke products--performance, product features, product lineup, etc that could be made by an astute reviewer, yet I hear none of that, with the sole exception of the kvetching about the basic TL75 test leads (which are, in fact, OK but not great). Oh, and the NCV detection is touchy apparently. And it doesn't like to swim.
-
For such a Fluke Complainer/Ranter he sure has enough of them. Wish Tek would bring a handheld DMM back. I really enjoyed it when I used it at a lab I worked at. I have a Tek Bench DMM and its decent, and the price was right. It’s been a while, but I for some reason doubted it was made by Tek when I opened it a few years back. Nonetheless, its intuitive, easy to use, and fast enough which is what I recall about their Handheld DMM’s
-
I have a Tek Bench DMM and its decent, and the price was right. It’s been a while, but I for some reason doubted it was made by Tek when I opened it a few years back.
Which one?
-
It’s the DMM-4020. I think I paid less than $300.00 for it. I also bought the Bech Linear Supply in the same form factor. Both are very good with the exception of the DMM-4020 has a annoying bug. If AC Power is lost, the DMM will turn on automatically after AC is reapplied, even if the DMM is off when power is lost.
Other than the above mentioned minor bug, its very easy to use. When I opened it and the supply It did not appear as thought Tek made it. I could be wrong thought. Nonetheless its good quality.
-
It’s the DMM-4020. I think I paid less than $300.00 for it. I also bought the Bech Linear Supply in the same form factor. Both are very good with the exception of the DMM-4020 has a annoying bug. If AC Power is lost, the DMM will turn on automatically after AC is reapplied, even if the DMM is off when power is lost.
Other than the above mentioned minor bug, its very easy to use. When I opened it and the supply It did not appear as thought Tek made it. I could be wrong thought. Nonetheless its good quality.
It is a Fluke.
-
Some people can see what it costs to manufacture a meter and can see similar quality meters by other manufacturers for half the price.
Yes, similar quality if you deliberately ignore or discount those characteristics such as warranty, support and so on and that the 'other' manufacturers fall short on.
None of those have anything to do with the quality of the meter.
If you want to pay up-front for support that you're never going to need (they're high-quality and don't fail, right?) then that's your choice.
If other people prefer to only pay for repairs/replacements if the thing actually breaks then it's their choice, too.
It's like car/house/life insurance though. You know those companies are making huge profits because people are paying much more than the actual risk factor.
-
It’s the DMM-4020. I think I paid less than $300.00 for it. I also bought the Bech Linear Supply in the same form factor. Both are very good with the exception of the DMM-4020 has a annoying bug. If AC Power is lost, the DMM will turn on automatically after AC is reapplied, even if the DMM is off when power is lost.
Other than the above mentioned minor bug, its very easy to use. When I opened it and the supply It did not appear as thought Tek made it. I could be wrong thought. Nonetheless its good quality.
Tek didn't make it, it is a Fluke 8808A. Yes, easy to use--turn on, no boot time, goes straight to DCV, 99% of the time one button gets you the reading you want if it is other than DCV.
The 'bug' is a feature. The meter is actually always on the way you are using it, the front 'soft-off' button just turns off the display and some front end stuff but most of the meter stays on. If you want it completely off, you use the switch on the back.
-
Some people can see what it costs to manufacture a meter and can see similar quality meters by other manufacturers for half the price.
Yes, similar quality if you deliberately ignore or discount those characteristics such as warranty, support and so on and that the 'other' manufacturers fall short on.
None of those have anything to do with the quality of the meter.
Quality is one of the most difficult things to define, especially due to its subjectiveness (read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance"). In the definitions of "whole product" quality, after service and warranty can be important values - aspects that helped Japanese cars dominate the US market.
That said, I fully agree with you that a higher price upfront tag encompasses expenses of service under warranty.
-
Wow, did not know the Tektronix was in fact a Fluke. I have had many Flukes, I like them, but the price has kind of turned me off. For many years I ran Fluke 867B, which to this day is still my favorite DMM. Unfortunately, In the last two years I had to repair it three times. Parts are becoming hard to come by, and the battery life is deplorable. When I went to replace it, I looked for a long while and settled on Keysight. I was also keen on Hioki, but at the time Keysight was offering the best bang for the buck.
I am not a DMM Guru, but I like reading posts of those who are. I also like the review/teardown videos that are posted. I would like to try a Bryman, as the OP has gotten himself for Christmas. I just learned on eevblog that this is in fact Greenlee here in the USA, so maybe its time to see what they are all about. I have heard nothing but good about the brand, but my lack of knowledge about Bryman in the USA being Greenlee prevented it at the time.
I am not sure how subjective "Quality" really is. I guess at the upper echelons there is a diminishing return on implied quality. What I can say is, it clear in my mind when I peer into a enclosure I can tell what is crap, and what product was made to last a long time irrespective of price.
-
It’s the DMM-4020. I think I paid less than $300.00 for it. I also bought the Bech Linear Supply in the same form factor. Both are very good with the exception of the DMM-4020 has a annoying bug. If AC Power is lost, the DMM will turn on automatically after AC is reapplied, even if the DMM is off when power is lost.
Other than the above mentioned minor bug, its very easy to use. When I opened it and the supply It did not appear as thought Tek made it. I could be wrong thought. Nonetheless its good quality.
Tek didn't make it, it is a Fluke 8808A. Yes, easy to use--turn on, no boot time, goes straight to DCV, 99% of the time one button gets you the reading you want if it is other than DCV.
The 'bug' is a feature. The meter is actually always on the way you are using it, the front 'soft-off' button just turns off the display and some front end stuff but most of the meter stays on. If you want it completely off, you use the switch on the back.
Is there some reference they are trying to keep alive? I am trying to understand the utility in having the unit running in the background, and keeping a voltage reference alive seems like a good explanation. I thought it was just a annoying bug but nothing major. Yes, I keep the AC Inlet switch OFF to stop it from happening.
-
Is there some reference they are trying to keep alive? I am trying to understand the utility in having the unit running in the background, and keeping a voltage reference alive seems like a good explanation. I thought it was just a annoying bug but nothing major. Yes, I keep the AC Inlet switch OFF to stop it from happening.
Yes, the LM399 stays heated, and I suppose the already low-tempco resistors stay at operating temperature. The LM399 would probably be pretty much good to go in the time it take for a full bootup anyway. The main benefits of soft-off AFAIK are saving the display but keeping the instant turn on.
-
To clarify, Greenlee rebrands various company's products, so not all Greenlee DMMs are Brymen. If you want the Brymen BM869s, the Greenlee equivalent is the DM-860A. You might try your local electrical supply store.
Welectron is probably the best place to get the Brymen BM869s if you're in the US. Shipping is a low flat rate and they offer a lot of options and accessories that you can tack on to your order.
Brymen offers a 1 year warranty. Greenlee offers a limited lifetime warranty.
-
Greenlee prices seem to be much higher than the original Brymens.
-
I am not sure how subjective "Quality" really is.
If you mean physical build quality then there's people on these forums testing that.
Meters get zapped, put into machines that turn the dial 100,000 times, etc.
One of the companies at the very top is Brymen. They're also the only company that actually replies to EEVBLOG testers when they ask questions via eMail and (sometimes) update the meters based on the testing.
Brymen is currently making a meter specially for Dave, I can't see the mighty Fluke doing that.
etc., etc.
Brymen right now is acting like the company that used to be Fluke - before Fluke was bought out and turned into a cash cow with most R&D stopped.
-
Brymen right now is acting like the company that used to be Fluke - before Fluke was bought out and turned into a cash cow with most R&D stopped.
Well, between this thread and the US S&P500, I see we are reaching peak silliness.
Yes, Brymen seems to be a company with some nice handheld products that appear competitive with some of Flukes 20-30 year old designs, all at a quite reasonable price from the looks of it. And they do appear to be eager to pack their products with lots of features and digits for the price--bang for buck. But to say that Flukes long product life cycle indicates that 'most R&D has stopped' is to ignore the huge range of best-in-class products in the Fluke lineup. If Brymen is actually as active in the R&D department as you say--and not subbing it out to EEVBlog and joeqsmith--then I look forward to their low-cost 10ppm 7.5 digit bench meter so that I can upgrade.
Take a look at this new product from a few years back. Read what it is and how it works--it's not what it appears to be at first glance. Does anyone else have one? (I really don't know)
https://www.fluke.com/en-us/product/electrical-testing/earth-ground/fluke-1630-2-fc (https://www.fluke.com/en-us/product/electrical-testing/earth-ground/fluke-1630-2-fc)
And a related patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9239352.PN.&OS=PN/9239352&RS=PN/9239352 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9239352.PN.&OS=PN/9239352&RS=PN/9239352)
You aren't going to see a lot of 'innovation' in handheld general-purpose DMMs because they are a mature product. People will hang flashlights on them and put in bluetooth comms or whatever else the fad of the day is, but I don't see the general functions changing or improving in any significant way. Some might even say they've gone too far already.
-
:palm: :palm: :palm:
Nobody's saying Fluke aren't any good.
Just overpriced.
-
:palm: :palm: :palm:
Nobody's saying Fluke aren't any good.
Just overpriced.
"Brymen right now is acting like the company that used to be Fluke - before Fluke was bought out and turned into a cash cow with most R&D stopped."
Did you forget what you said?
-
But to say that Flukes long product life cycle indicates that 'most R&D has stopped' is to ignore the huge range of best-in-class products in the Fluke lineup.
Look at Flukes new 170 series (175, 177, 179). Yes, Fluke calls this series new on the Danish website. The PDF I have about them is copyright 2003.
They are sold as general purpose meters, but without uA range, this is not really a best-in-class product. I will not call my 179 a bad meter (It is a good meter), but if you want a general purpose meter it is outclassed by Brymen.
-
One obscure but relevant advantage: The Fluke 179 is not affected by RF field strength up to 3V/m, except on temperature accuracy (+5C).
The Brymen 869s seems more susceptible, with published accuracy+100 on all readings, especially unreliable on capacitance, with no specified accuracy shift.
-
If Brymen is actually as active in the R&D department as you say--and not subbing it out to EEVBlog and joeqsmith--then I look forward to their low-cost 10ppm 7.5 digit bench meter so that I can upgrade.
.......
You aren't going to see a lot of 'innovation' in handheld general-purpose DMMs because they are a mature product. People will hang flashlights on them and put in bluetooth comms or whatever else the fad of the day is, but I don't see the general functions changing or improving in any significant way. Some might even say they've gone too far already.
A bit desperate arguments, aren't they. Renault had spectacular F1 engines, but that doesn't make Clio as fast as Ferrari 488... Even when Renault F1 beat Ferrari on the track... Two very different departments in Renault.
If we talk handheld multimeters, innovation IS benchtop meter feature set with CATIV 1000V with high resolution... Fluke of today has NO R&D, or contender in that market.
But that is OK. If you go and search you will find that Fluke handhelds target market is industrial meters ..
Fluke itself is calling them : Industrial, electrician, technician meters.. "Fluke 87V TRMS Industrial Multimeter" for instance..
They decided, by choice, to make certain types of instruments, and basically exited advanced electronics meters (like F189 and such). They make rugged, reliable, simple instruments to serve industry.
And for industrial use, that ruggedness, calibration structure and support, bunch of existing procedures, etc. etc. make sense. If you're an oil refinery, you have to comply with thousands standards, and procedures that already have Fluke written in all over the place. They could easily change to other manufacturers, as far as equipment cost goes. But cost of compliance, recertification, education would be huge..
Fluke's lack of development is by choice, industry literally doesn't want new instruments. Industry simply wants replacements for old broken meters, or new ones (but old type) for new dept. And they don't have to change anything. I like to make jokes that F87V are NOS meters...
If Fluke would make their counterpart of best and most innovative meter on the market, their current customers, wouldn't care..
OTOH, I don't need those Fluke characteristics (or qualities for some.. ).
I need meter for electronics, I keep my instruments pristine clean, never drop them or put them in auto mechanics tool box full of engine oil. I don't work in explosive atmosphere, and don't need ISO compliance..
Therefore Fluke, for me, has nothing that justifies super high price and low feature set.
I do, sometimes, work in CAT IV 1000V environment and need good quality, good features, resolution etc etc.
For me Brymen serves that spot, because it ticks my boxes better. And the price is very right..
And another OTOH, I do have expensive Metrix, because if I give top money, I want top functions...
And it is basically 5.5 digit benchtop feature set in a handheld, smaller than F87.
Fluke has no meters in any of those categories (F287/289 are nowhere close to MTX3293).
So for me, they have no product that would interest me, handheld multimeter wise...
And for many hobby/small business customers I think it would be the same.
But, that is not because Fluke is stupid or something. They simply don't care for that market..
Someone calculated that there is no good money in it. 4 times the BOM and R&D, half the price..
And that is fine. Their choice not to, my choice to buy something else. All happy.
Best Fluke handheld meter for electronics lab is some other brand...
But make no mistake, on their target market, they are virtual monopoly. And deserve it.
My 2c..
Regards,
-
Look at Flukes new 170 series (175, 177, 179). Yes, Fluke calls this series new on the Danish website. The PDF I have about them is copyright 2003.
They are sold as general purpose meters, but without uA range, this is not really a best-in-class product. I will not call my 179 a bad meter (It is a good meter), but if you want a general purpose meter it is outclassed by Brymen.
I shouldn't have used the term 'class' because todays marketing types have their various industries (automotive being the most famous for this) divided into many 'classes' and then give themselves 'best in class' awards. "Quietest minivan in the 8-seat midsize 5 cylinder $30,000 class". And I was referring to the company and industry as a whole, not just the well-worn handheld market. Things like reference standards, long-scale mulitmeters, industrial power measurement, etc.
The 179 is certainly not new nor does it win any bang-for-buck competitions, that's for sure. You can actually get the Brymen 869S here for the same price with a lifetime warranty thru Greenlee. However, since I have neither, I can't actually test them for real-life performance to see where one might outperform the other. Spec sheets are nice but seldom tell the story, and throwing them off buildings or zapping them with BBQ lighters doesn't really answer those questions either.
-
If we talk handheld multimeters, innovation IS benchtop meter feature set with CATIV 1000V with high resolution... Fluke of today has NO R&D, or contender in that market.
I can't speak for them, but they've chosen not to address their customer's needs via a product like you describe. As far as CATIV 1000V, I'd be shocked :) if you actually ever work in that environment. 480/277 is as high as I would ever touch and I'm not likely to want to be in a live panel at that level without considerable care. Once you go above that, you start needing special protective equipment, assistants or watchers, special training, etc etc. Often these installations are high voltage--above 1000V. There's not that much between 480/277 and high voltage in my limited experience. And as for benchtop feature set, I imagine they would say that if the F289 isn't enough (it seems gross overkill for every use I can think of for it) then you should get an actual benchtop or a specialty product for your purpose. I'd be interested in hearing about a specific application where you actually needed some feature--and needed it in a handheld--not available in a Fluke. The only one I can imagine is the two-temperature feature.
They decided, by choice, to make certain types of instruments, and basically exited advanced electronics meters (like F189 and such). They make rugged, reliable, simple instruments to serve industry.
Partly true, but a bit of a stretch. AFAIK, the 289 completely replaces the 189 and then some. And 'simple', well the F87 or F28EX, sure. Their other lines, like scopemeters, are fairly sophisticated.
Fluke's lack of development is by choice, industry literally doesn't want new instruments. Industry simply wants replacements for old broken meters, or new ones (but old type) for new dept. And they don't have to change anything. I like to make jokes that F87V are NOS meters...
As I said somewhere else, don't mistake their long product life cycle with a lack of R&D. You're right, if someone in Fluke management told their engineers to whip up a 6.5 digit lithium battery glow-in-the-dark OLED graphing wonder-meter with wi-fi and a geiger counter, they'd have no issues coming up with one. The vast majority of their users would see no value in that, and I'm in that camp. Keep in mind that Fortive also owns Tektronix/Keithley, so they can sell Keithley to the bang-for-buck electronics geeks. Fluke is for the old-money types that expect their stuff to last 30 years or more.
-
And another OTOH, I do have expensive Metrix, because if I give top money, I want top functions...
And it is basically 5.5 digit benchtop feature set in a handheld, smaller than F87.
Fluke has no meters in any of those categories (F287/289 are nowhere close to MTX3293).
CA/Metrix is a company I would regard as a much more worthy competitor to Fluke than some of the others that are often mentioned. They actually make stuff like calibrators, etc. But I had to look out of curiousity--the MTX3293 is quite a bit more expensive here than the F289, in fact as much or more than an 8808A bench meter. Other than the fact that it is in color, has 2X the counts (100K vs 50K) and marginally greater specified accuracy, what is it that you think sets it so far apart from the F289?
-
One obscure but relevant advantage: The Fluke 179 is not affected by RF field strength up to 3V/m, except on temperature accuracy (+5C).
The Brymen 869s seems more susceptible, with published accuracy+100 on all readings, especially unreliable on capacitance, with no specified accuracy shift.
80Mhz - 3Ghz, test distance of 3 meters, 10V/m, 80% modulation at 1KHz AM
https://youtu.be/wYuzFtoHMqg?t=980
-
If Brymen is actually as active in the R&D department as you say--and not subbing it out to EEVBlog and joeqsmith--then I look forward to their low-cost 10ppm 7.5 digit bench meter so that I can upgrade.
I'm not doing any research or development for them. I've reviewed a few of their products is about all.
I'm not sure what R&D has to do with 7.5 digit bench meters. I guess anything else just falls from the sky and grows on trees.
-
And another OTOH, I do have expensive Metrix, because if I give top money, I want top functions...
And it is basically 5.5 digit benchtop feature set in a handheld, smaller than F87.
Fluke has no meters in any of those categories (F287/289 are nowhere close to MTX3293).
CA/Metrix is a company I would regard as a much more worthy competitor to Fluke than some of the others that are often mentioned. They actually make stuff like calibrators, etc. But I had to look out of curiousity--the MTX3293 is quite a bit more expensive here than the F289, in fact as much or more than an 8808A bench meter. Other than the fact that it is in color, has 2X the counts (100K vs 50K) and marginally greater specified accuracy, what is it that you think sets it so far apart from the F289?
First thing to consider is that Fluke is cheaper in US than EU, and Metrix and Gossen is cheaper in EU.
They are roughly the same price, around 600€ and change, depending on your luck.
With MTX3293 you get very nice robust bag, charger, IR interface, and very nice set of silicone modular probes. Meter comes with rechargeable batteries, and nice logging software is free.
So you get much more for same price.. So no Fluke is not cheaper, not by a mile.
What sets it apart? Everything.. It just conceptually smart..
It has so many clever things.. Many features, PT100 and Tc temp measurement, single current socket, high current high voltage diode mode, nice handling AC/DC AC+DC, good logging, scaling math with units, spec mode, custom shunt and current clamp mode (current and voltage type), Hi input resistance mode, LoZ, Lowpass filter, etc etc.. It's bandwidth goes over 300kHz, it's fast..
Good meter. I like it better than 289.
-
I'm not doing any research or development for them. I've reviewed a few of their products is about all.
I'm not sure what R&D has to do with 7.5 digit bench meters. I guess anything else just falls from the sky and grows on trees.
That was a response to preposterously egregious (or egregiously preposterous) statement by someone else, but I would observe that the concepts of 'research', 'development' and 'innovation' seem to have changed over the years, at least from my persepective, to mean quite a bit less. And now you are changing the term 'review' to mean, well, a bit more. I think you are at least up in the category of their product testing department.
This isn't to disparage you or them, their meters look like a great value and your tests interesting. But you seem to get my point--I would say that using off-the-shelf components to produce a product that simply approximates the function of existing products, perhaps slightly better or perhaps not quite as well, doesn't quite rise to the level of research or innovation. Development, perhaps. But I suppose that disassembling and inspecting competitor products, perusing OEM component makers data sheets and reference schematics counts as 'research' nowadays, but I put that more in the category of stuff that grows on trees. Quite literally if you print them out.
-
So you get much more for same price.. So no Fluke is not cheaper, not by a mile.
Well that makes a big difference. I got a package deal and got most of the options included, so I didn't pay $800+, and it was a while ago. The features look mostly the same and the ones that are different seemed a yawn until I saw 1G input impedance mode. If I were buying again and the prices were the same, that alone would win me over.
-
So you get much more for same price.. So no Fluke is not cheaper, not by a mile.
Well that makes a big difference. I got a package deal and got most of the options included
When I bought my BM857s I got a package deal with official Brymen case and gold plated leads for $180.
-
the concepts of 'research', 'development' and 'innovation' seem to have changed over the years, at least from my persepective, to mean quite a bit less.
The rest of the world seems to be using the previous definition, the one where existing products are improved and new products developed over time.
It seems to me that Fluke has decided (or "figured out" if you prefer) that their target customers (ie. people who see their meters as a business expense) are happy with Fluke meters as-is, that when they go out to buy a meter they don't want to be offered any new options they just want the exact same meter they had last time around, the meter they're familiar with and know will do the job.
That's all fine and I have no problem with it. OTOH it has nothing to do with the claim that Flukes are overpriced or that Fluke could easily be throwing in some decent leads and a case for that money instead of gouging people for them (which I'm sure even the most stuck-in-the-mud customer would be happy with!)
-
I don't think that Brymen is much different than Fluke in this regard; my BM857 is an early edition manufactured in 2002 or 2003 and, when compared to Fungus" new acquisition, the changes are incremental at best (better backlight and better access door for fuses and batteries). There is a reason why it is still in production almost 20 years after its introduction - this multimeter market cares a lot about drop-in replacements.
Regarding innovation, I perosnally don't know how much "research" was involved but Fluke has done a few different products such as the contactless voltage measurement (T5, T6), handheld power analyzers that resemble their oscilloscopes and non-meter areas such as thermal sensing and imaging - some of their industrial cameras are very impressive, but Fraser would be our resident expert to tell if there is real innovation there.
There's only so much you can innovate in multimeters: even the collection of new brands from China (Aneng, Richmeters, Zoyi and so on) use more or less the same tried and proven features of the other brands. The "research" resources seem to be invested in cost reduction provided by new chipsets and in a vast array of different form factors to explore new markets and uses and see what "sticks". Also, judging by the new "pro" or "rugged-like" product lines from Aneng and Uni-T, even they are starting to notice that just stuffing a meter with features is not the only market to be covered - there's money to be made in the industrial market as well.
All in all to say that I agree with many angles highlighted here. Depending on the angle, both the well established Flukes, the new kid on the block Brymen or even the impressive Metrix device mentioned by Sinisa are travelling a well paved road and will invest their money where it makes sense.
-
I'm not doing any research or development for them. I've reviewed a few of their products is about all.
I'm not sure what R&D has to do with 7.5 digit bench meters. I guess anything else just falls from the sky and grows on trees.
That was a response to preposterously egregious (or egregiously preposterous) statement by someone else, but I would observe that the concepts of 'research', 'development' and 'innovation' seem to have changed over the years, at least from my persepective, to mean quite a bit less. And now you are changing the term 'review' to mean, well, a bit more. I think you are at least up in the category of their product testing department.
This isn't to disparage you or them, their meters look like a great value and your tests interesting. But you seem to get my point--I would say that using off-the-shelf components to produce a product that simply approximates the function of existing products, perhaps slightly better or perhaps not quite as well, doesn't quite rise to the level of research or innovation. Development, perhaps. But I suppose that disassembling and inspecting competitor products, perusing OEM component makers data sheets and reference schematics counts as 'research' nowadays, but I put that more in the category of stuff that grows on trees. Quite literally if you print them out.
At least for those in the USA, I suspect that the IRS defines R&D. That's a good question for any CPAs here.
From what I have seen there's a bit of research that has gone into some of the function switch designs. What materials to use, widths, tensions, surface finishes..... Still you have companies like Keysight using plastics that crack after a few cycles or meters that are just ground to dust. These companies could with a bit of research. Then again, they may just ride on their reputations or are very cost sensitive.
After reading about the latching relays in that French made meter, I lost all desire to test one. It may make coffee and toast but they may have missed the fact than I want a switch that doesn't change states with a magnetic strap or being dropped. I've seen enough of that with the Gossen. People like to relate everything to cars here so ... I don't need power windows or a radio in my car to drive to work. What I need is reliable transportation.
I'm not a fan of the unboxing, plugging it into the wall outlet reviews where they talk about how great the product is for a half hour. Of course, let's not forget how their expert opinion as a manager, IT professional, failed business owner.... has something to do with how well the product performs. If those are the kinds of reviews you are used to, then perhaps I have moved the bar a bit with my testing. Up, down or sideways, your choice. :-DD
As a consumer, I like things that are well made and designed to last. My goal for the testing wasn't to sell you a meter or to make any money but rather remove the fan boy feelings and look at some data collected rrom running a common set of tests.
-
I don't think that Brymen is much different than Fluke in this regard; my BM857 is an early edition manufactured in 2002 or 2003 and, when compared to Fungus" new acquisition, the changes are incremental at best (better backlight and better access door for fuses and batteries). There is a reason why it is still in production almost 20 years after its introduction - this multimeter market cares a lot about drop-in replacements.
But since then they've made the all new curvy models that you see on their web site.
The Fluke 87V is used by EE people. Where's the 9999 count version, with 99999 count high-res mode + CAT IV 1000V rating?
Why are all their low-cost meters crippled in some way? eg. The 17B+ isn't TRMS, doesn't have a bar graph. Can they really not innovate there? Of course they can but they don't want to because a lot of people would stop buying the 87V.
Even worse: They used to make cute little pocket sized meters like this one, but they stopped doing it. That's devolution.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-dmm-for-chistmas-embedded-development/?action=dlattach;attach=1133646;image)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-dmm-for-chistmas-embedded-development/?action=dlattach;attach=1133650;image)
-
Hi Joe:
I for one never got the impression you were making a sales pitch for any brand, in any of your videos. As a matter of fact, I am fairly certain you go to great lengths to explain that is not the purpose, or goal of your testing.
I like most your description of what is going on inside, the circuits in the product you are testing, and what happened when it failed. I also like your test equipment videos and the explanation you provide in those has been helpful. My favorite however is your breadboard microwave oscillator video. That was awesome!
Rich
-
Hi Joe:
....
My favorite however is your breadboard microwave oscillator video. That was awesome!
Rich
Rich,
I appreciate your comments.
As for that contest, there was a gentleman who had a fairly high end spectrum analyzer that posted after the dust had settled. They were throwing up some pretty big numbers and I was really looking forward to seeing them exceed 25GHz. Sadly, we never heard from them again and my record still stands.
-
At least for those in the USA, I suspect that the IRS defines R&D. That's a good question for any CPAs here.
I'll save you the trouble. The legal answer is that you can include almost any expenditure in the R&D category, including market and consumer research, the cost of those meters that Brymen sent you, etc. Anything in 'design' can be included in development as well. Whether you do or not depends on whether you want an expense (lowers your taxes) or a capital expenditure (makes your income statement look better). Any expenses incurred in having you test their meters (I'm not suggesting you are compensated or partial) could be included in that.
From what I have seen there's a bit of research that has gone into some of the function switch designs. What materials to use, widths, tensions, surface finishes..... Still you have companies like Keysight using plastics that crack after a few cycles or meters that are just ground to dust. These companies could with a bit of research. Then again, they may just ride on their reputations or are very cost sensitive.
Or they may have done incomplete or bad 'research'. Quite often an existing solution is the way to go and cases like this demonstrate why it might be smart to NOT update your product line every 18 months. I'm not trying to be argumentative on this topic, I just am not impressed by 'research' intended solely to produce incremental cost reductions, tax deductible or not. And my initial comments were in response to a statement by someone else that you can read for yourself.
I'm not a fan of the unboxing, plugging it into the wall outlet reviews where they talk about how great the product is for a half hour. Of course, let's not forget how their expert opinion as a manager, IT professional, failed business owner.... has something to do with how well the product performs. If those are the kinds of reviews you are used to, then perhaps I have moved the bar a bit with my testing. Up, down or sideways, your choice. :-DD
Don't mistake my comments as an attack or criticism. I completely agree as to what I like to see in reviews. although there should always be room for debate over whether a particular test is really relevant or appropriate or done in a manner that reflects its actual use. I just wish there were more reviewers that took your approach, but to different aspects such as accuracy, battery life, etc. You have moved the bar up, and when I say you've gone above and beyond the role of reviewer that isn't a criticism--but installing new firmware by soldering in a new chip goes way beyond the role of a reviewer or beta tester. I have a cynical view of companies that claim to listen to their customers, which I interpret as letting their customers be the beta testers and quality control monitors.
-
The Fluke 87V is used by EE people. Where's the 9999 count version, with 99999 count high-res mode + CAT IV 1000V rating?
Why are all their low-cost meters crippled in some way? eg. The 17B+ isn't TRMS, doesn't have a bar graph. Can they really not innovate there? Of course they can but they don't want to because a lot of people would stop buying the 87V.
Even worse: They used to make cute little pocket sized meters like this one, but they stopped doing it. That's devolution.
I don't know that the 87V is the EE's meter of choice, I think that's probably wrong. Service techs, electricians, etc all use it, even where it might not be the very best tool, but I suspect EE's in general use a wide range of instruments and probably a lot more bench meters. As for the features, why? What does more counts get you in a handheld service meter? Why don't you mention accuracy instead of counts? And CATIV/1000V, really? There's a video out there demonstrating that the 87V can withstand transients far beyond even the 12K/2R CATIV/1000 level, but perhaps they simply realize that CATIV above 600 volts is simply no place for any handheld DMM with standard probes and don't want to sanction its use there. Or, maybe there's some other reason.
As for the feature set in their lower end meters, there's certainly room for criticism. I suspect they are just as susceptible to marketing wankery as anyone else, including a directive to not cannibalize sales of more expensive units. But that has nothing to do with innovation--putting more stuff in the box is nice, but not innovative in any sense I can subscribe to. They make what they think their customers will buy and some of those models I have no idea who the customer is. Look at the 113 and tell me who buys that.
-
I'll save you the trouble. The legal answer is ...
I am not in a position where it would matter. If I were, no offense as I'm sure you're an expert in tax law but I think I would seek legal counsel outside of an Electronics Community. :-DD
I'm not a fan of the unboxing, plugging it into the wall outlet reviews where they talk about how great the product is for a half hour. Of course, let's not forget how their expert opinion as a manager, IT professional, failed business owner.... has something to do with how well the product performs. If those are the kinds of reviews you are used to, then perhaps I have moved the bar a bit with my testing. Up, down or sideways, your choice. :-DD
Don't mistake my comments as an attack or criticism. I completely agree as to what I like to see in reviews. although there should always be room for debate over whether a particular test is really relevant or appropriate or done in a manner that reflects its actual use. I just wish there was more reviewers that took your approach, but to different aspects such as accuracy, battery life, etc. You have moved the bar up, and when I say you've gone above and beyond the role of reviewer that isn't a criticism--but installing new firmware by soldering in a new chip goes way beyond the role of a reviewer or beta tester. I have a cynical view of companies that claim to listen to their customers, which I interpret as letting their customers be the beta testers and quality control monitors.
If your comments are meant as an attack or criticism really doesn't matter much. I run the tests for myself. If you watch, you're just along for the ride is all.
There is no limit to the number of people who have voiced their opinions about the tests I run. The sad part is that the number of people I see stepping up to show the world how it should be done is inversely proportional. I'm not suggesting you fall into that category. If you really wish there were more reviewers and you feel you know the right way to review them, by all means impress us all. Still, one of my favorite meter reviews of all time was seeing fungus pulling that poor meter behind the boat and down the stairs. :-DD :-DD Just classic!
Personally, I have no interest in watching a review where they just explain what's covered in the manuals. I often suggest people start there for their basic questions on accuracy and such.
-
But since then they've made the all new curvy models that you see on their web site.
Yes, those are impressive models on their product line, including the Cat IV 1kV line. They set their eyes head to head on Fluke and they have a good product line. But they didn't remove their older products - why would be the reasons? We can only speculate, but perhaps it is because they sell well and have an entire replacement market?
The Fluke 87V is used by EE people. Where's the 9999 count version, with 99999 count high-res mode + CAT IV 1000V rating?
Well, they had a full 50000 count meter and made the decision to discontinue it. Was it unpopular? Did it have an intrinsic problem that we are unaware? Was it not sturdy enough? My 189 feels a bit more fragile than my 87V and my old 179. Was it an executive decision that a "good enough" 20000 count meter would cover this market up to their newfangled 287/289 series? Was it an internal political move to kill it? We don't know, unless someone on the eye of the hurricane tells us. But that doesn’t mean they didn't innovate or tried to bring other elements to the market.
Why are all their low-cost meters crippled in some way? eg. The 17B+ isn't TRMS, doesn't have a bar graph. Can they really not innovate there? Of course they can but they don't want to because a lot of people would stop buying the 87V.
Well, I don't work at Fluke to tell you, but for quite some time they did not even cater to the low end. They probably came to a reason to release the 11x and the 1x series with the sole purpose of catering to a lower cost market manufactured in a lower cost facility. However, judging by their lifespan, many of these entry level models have found their spot on the market.
Even worse: They used to make cute little pocket sized meters like this one, but they stopped doing it. That's devolution.
Taste is in the eyes of the beholder. I find meters with these "ears" a horrendous idea that was apparently never popular. Just look around and you will see these are a minute fraction of the available products on the marketplace.
Besides, they still do tiny cute meters such as the 101. If their quality control was better, I would surely recommend it.
Look, I also think that Fluke is overpriced when I look at the features alone, but there are several intangible qualities to them that are certainly making a great deal of their users happy or, at least, content.
-
I'm sure you're an expert in tax law but I think I would seek legal counsel outside of an Electronics Community.
On YouTube, perhaps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VXVpapdJmA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VXVpapdJmA)
There is no limit to the number of people who have voiced their opinions about the tests I run.
That would seem to be the expected result of producing YouTube videos and posting them to EEVBlog. You can't possibly be in it just for the adulation.
The sad part is that the number of people I see stepping up to show the world how it should be done is inversely proportional. I'm not suggesting you fall into that category. If you really wish there were more reviewers and you feel you know the right way to review them, by all means impress us all. Personally, I have no interest in watching a review where they just explain what's covered in the manuals. I often suggest people start there for their basic questions on accuracy and such.
I'm not likely to start producing videos to impress anyone, the medium seems like a lot of work to explain the simple results I would look for. But it seems to me that remarkably few people are interested in seeing whether their devices fail to meet, meet, beat or greatly exceed their specifications. We get DMMCheck at the most. Or how they perform in adverse circumstances whether that is EMC/EF, noise, humidity, temperature, high altitude, underwater or whatever. Those things would make pretty boring videos and can be just written in a chart or graph of some sort.
-
I'm sure you're an expert in tax law but I think I would seek legal counsel outside of an Electronics Community.
On YouTube, perhaps?
I'll cross that bridge when/if I come to it. Till then no worries.
There is no limit to the number of people who have voiced their opinions about the tests I run.
That would seem to be the expected result of producing YouTube videos and posting them to EEVBlog. You can't possibly be in it just for the adulation.
I'm certainly not in it for all that youtube cash and stardom. As I have already stated, I just had an interest after seeing so much hype being posted with so little data and thought I would have a look for myself. The few viewers that follow the channel get to see it unfold for free. You will never hear me say "give it a thumbs up" "click the bell" or "join my patreon so I can continue to make this great content" on this channel.
The sad part is that the number of people I see stepping up to show the world how it should be done is inversely proportional. I'm not suggesting you fall into that category. If you really wish there were more reviewers and you feel you know the right way to review them, by all means impress us all. Personally, I have no interest in watching a review where they just explain what's covered in the manuals. I often suggest people start there for their basic questions on accuracy and such.
I'm not likely to start producing videos to impress anyone, the medium seems like a lot of work to explain the simple results I would look for. But it seems to me that remarkably few people are interested in seeing whether their devices fail to meet, meet, beat or greatly exceed their specifications. We get DMMCheck at the most. Or how they perform in adverse circumstances whether that is EMC/EF, noise, humidity, temperature, high altitude, underwater or whatever. Those things would make pretty boring videos and can be just written in a chart or graph of some sort.
I am not surprised but if you change your mind and decide to start your channel where you set up a metrology lab with primary standards to look at some free HF meters to see if they meet or exceed their specs, be sure and let us know.
-
I'm not likely to start producing videos to impress anyone, the medium seems like a lot of work to explain the simple results I would look for. But it seems to me that remarkably few people are interested in seeing whether their devices fail to meet, meet, beat or greatly exceed their specifications. We get DMMCheck at the most. Or how they perform in adverse circumstances whether that is EMC/EF, noise, humidity, temperature, high altitude, underwater or whatever. Those things would make pretty boring videos and can be just written in a chart or graph of some sort.
I am not surprised but if you change your mind and decide to start your channel where you set up a metrology lab with primary standards to look at some free HF meters to see if they meet or exceed their specs, be sure and let us know.
Interestingly, when I added a small energy generator (80V at a few mA) and started to publish the meters that could "take it" and the ones that couldn't, a great deal of people praised this. This was obviously inspired by Dave and Joe.
I will someday have a real generator like Joe's... :-+
-
I'm not likely to start producing videos to impress anyone, the medium seems like a lot of work to explain the simple results I would look for. But it seems to me that remarkably few people are interested in seeing whether their devices fail to meet, meet, beat or greatly exceed their specifications. We get DMMCheck at the most. Or how they perform in adverse circumstances whether that is EMC/EF, noise, humidity, temperature, high altitude, underwater or whatever. Those things would make pretty boring videos and can be just written in a chart or graph of some sort.
I'm interested in how well my meters hold their specs, but I send them for calibration for that purpose..
Low count meters accuracy check is well served by DMMCheck, and higher accuracy meters really need to be sent to someone that has serious standards to make any sense.
For instance, Brymen 869S was verified by several users here and was shown that random meters holds specs to better than 10 ppM a year.
I sent my MTX3293 for verification and also it was well in spec... I do have small AOIP calibrator that in theory could verify them both, but that one is not calibrated. I use it as stable/precise voltage/current source. It was adjusted by me with calibrated 6.5 digit DMM, so I know it is reasonably there..
But, I wouldn't even try to start calculating uncertainties to even speculate what guardband would that equate to...
We have few Voltnut members here that actually have traceable volt references, but they have no interest in spending time checking UNI-T meters...
-
Interestingly, when I added a small energy generator (80V at a few mA) and started to publish the meters that could "take it" and the ones that couldn't, a great deal of people praised this. This was obviously inspired by Dave and Joe.
I will someday have a real generator like Joe's... :-+
Cheap meters in the ohms, diode and temperature?
I used to get a lot of comments about how the meters didn't explode and so they were safe, dumb shit like that. Seems there were many people who lacked a basic understanding of how much energy 20J is and what it can do. Of course there are the comments about not following an accepted standard. Which again was a problem from the start.
Imagine someone with the resources to setup a blast area with an actual combo generator to replicate the IEC surge and burst tests would cause a stir. Toss in a real ESD gun.... Have it all certified and then test to the standards.
I'm not an electrician and have little concern about safety. These tests wouldn't get me what I was after. I bet running them would stir up some interest.
I'm interested in how well my meters hold their specs, but I send them for calibration for that purpose..
Does seem like many of the cheap meters I look at come in fairly tight. I wonder about ageing. Outside of sending them in and getting a report and tracking over the years, not sure what you would learn. The cost could very well exceed the price of the cheap meter.
We have few Voltnut members here that actually have traceable volt references, but they have no interest in spending time checking UNI-T meters...
:-DD :-DD
-
I'm interested in how well my meters hold their specs, but I send them for calibration for that purpose..
Low count meters accuracy check is well served by DMMCheck, and higher accuracy meters really need to be sent to someone that has serious standards to make any sense.
Calibration with before and after data from a reputable lab would be an expensive proposition here compared to the price of the meter. And AFAIK, Brymen has not released a calibration manual. DMM Check is handy, but one reading at 5VDC and a 5VAC square wave at one frequency is a pretty limited check. You can verify any meter up to 4.5 digits or .02% accuracy by using a stable source and a decent 6.5 digit meter as a reference. It won't get you a cal certificate, but if it is for your own knowledge it is a perfectly good check. The only real difficulty I've encountered is that some meters require test voltages and currents that are difficult to generate.
For instance, Brymen 869S was verified by several users here and was shown that random meters holds specs to better than 10 ppM a year.
I sent my MTX3293 for verification and also it was well in spec... I do have small AOIP calibrator that in theory could verify them both, but that one is not calibrated. I use it as stable/precise voltage/current source. It was adjusted by me with calibrated 6.5 digit DMM, so I know it is reasonably there..
But, I wouldn't even try to start calculating uncertainties to even speculate what guardband would that equate to...
We have few Voltnut members here that actually have traceable volt references, but they have no interest in spending time checking UNI-T meters...
How were those Brymens verified? I don't know why primary and traceable standards come up in discussing handheld DMMs. Verifying that your meter reads 10.0000 volts tells you one thing and one thing only. The proper tool is a multifunction calibrator that meets the requirements in the OEM calibration manual, or one you think will work as well for your purposes. Since it appears you have the equipment, perhaps you want to start a YouTube channel. Where do we send the meters? :)
-
Interestingly, when I added a small energy generator (80V at a few mA) and started to publish the meters that could "take it" and the ones that couldn't, a great deal of people praised this. This was obviously inspired by Dave and Joe.
I will someday have a real generator like Joe's... :-+
Cheap meters in the ohms, diode and temperature?
Of course! What is the fun of having 80V applied to a 600 or 1000V rated input? Even still, many go crazy, power off, are locked in a strange state (requiring power cycle), etc.
I used to get a lot of comments about how the meters didn't explode and so they were safe, dumb shit like that. Seems there were many people who lacked a basic understanding of how much energy 20J is and what it can do. Of course there are the comments about not following an accepted standard. Which again was a problem from the start.
I personally love seeing stuff blow up, but I also have to put up the statement that the meters that escape unharmed are not guaranteed to be *safe* or will escape unscathed on a real event. I am only trimming the absolute bottom of the barrel with my tests.
What I do is different in nature to what you do - I apply a constant voltage for several seconds to emulate the scenario where a user sets a wrong range for the measure.
Imagine someone with the resources to setup a blast area with an actual combo generator to replicate the IEC surge and burst tests would cause a stir. Toss in a real ESD gun.... Have it all certified and then test to the standards.
I am pretty sure that real manufacturers have their labs properly setup - either for pre-cert or in-house cert (Hioki, Sanwa...)
I'm interested in how well my meters hold their specs, but I send them for calibration for that purpose..
Does seem like many of the cheap meters I look at come in fairly tight. I wonder about ageing. Outside of sending them in and getting a report and tracking over the years, not sure what you would learn. The cost could very well exceed the price of the cheap meter.
I also maintain a spreadsheet with values and how these meters hold over the years - the cheap ones seem to hold quite well. However, there are so many scenarios of abuse that would probably skim the cheapos from the real ones.
-
I used to get a lot of comments about how the meters didn't explode and so they were safe, dumb shit like that. Seems there were many people who lacked a basic understanding of how much energy 20J is and what it can do.
You still had quite a few meters that jumped around inside the test box. I wouldn't like to be holding one in my hand when you zapped them.
If you were on a ladder then the shock of that happening could still be enough to make you fall off, even if the electricity didn't get to you.
(or step backwards, put your foot in the bucket and fall flat on your arse...)
-
I'm interested in how well my meters hold their specs, but I send them for calibration for that purpose..
Low count meters accuracy check is well served by DMMCheck, and higher accuracy meters really need to be sent to someone that has serious standards to make any sense.
Calibration with before and after data from a reputable lab would be an expensive proposition here compared to the price of the meter. And AFAIK, Brymen has not released a calibration manual. DMM Check is handy, but one reading at 5VDC and a 5VAC square wave at one frequency is a pretty limited check. You can verify any meter up to 4.5 digits or .02% accuracy by using a stable source and a decent 6.5 digit meter as a reference. It won't get you a cal certificate, but if it is for your own knowledge it is a perfectly good check. The only real difficulty I've encountered is that some meters require test voltages and currents that are difficult to generate.
For instance, Brymen 869S was verified by several users here and was shown that random meters holds specs to better than 10 ppM a year.
I sent my MTX3293 for verification and also it was well in spec... I do have small AOIP calibrator that in theory could verify them both, but that one is not calibrated. I use it as stable/precise voltage/current source. It was adjusted by me with calibrated 6.5 digit DMM, so I know it is reasonably there..
But, I wouldn't even try to start calculating uncertainties to even speculate what guardband would that equate to...
We have few Voltnut members here that actually have traceable volt references, but they have no interest in spending time checking UNI-T meters...
How were those Brymens verified? I don't know why primary and traceable standards come up in discussing handheld DMMs. Verifying that your meter reads 10.0000 volts tells you one thing and one thing only. The proper tool is a multifunction calibrator that meets the requirements in the OEM calibration manual, or one you think will work as well for your purposes. Since it appears you have the equipment, perhaps you want to start a YouTube channel. Where do we send the meters? :)
In no particular order:
- they released calibration and adjustment manual just not to you and me.
- you send it to calibration facility. They do before and after measurement, and that is DAkkS calibration, meaning traceable to primary labs. Price is around 80 € for BM869S..
- It definitely is something to do if you use meter daily and want to be able to trust it, like for work.
- Yes, some members here have multifunction calibrators, and few have them calibrated with traceability to primary labs..
- I have no ambition to have Youtube channel, or to keep calibrated multifunction calibrator.. I also don't have any ambition to be JoeQ of calibrators... I keep one 6.5 digit meter on extended checks (3 years), just in case, and have sent MTX3293 for checkup, just because I do some production testing with it, and because it came with full calibration certificate, so after 2 years, I decided to send it for verification just to check how well it ages.. I doubt I will be sending it again, because it was well in spec, and since initial drift already passed, I don't expect it to drift much now..
- I might send my BM869 for cal too, next year, just because, it's been 3 years for that one too, so just to check and if needed to adjust, so that one is also then set for life...
-
- I might send my BM869 for cal too, next year, just because, it's been 3 years for that one too, so just to check and if needed to adjust, so that one is also then set for life...
Let us know how it goes. I'm fairly sure it will pass though.
After reading these forums for a few years and hearing multiple similar anecdotes it seems obvious that the designers of these meters know what they're doing and design them to stay in spec. Calibration certificates are mostly for people who need a paper trail for legal reasons.
Seems like a trivial thing to say, but it's true. The voltage references, etc., that go into the meters come with datasheets that specify drift over time. It really is possible to design/engineer things to stay in spec.
-
I used to get a lot of comments about how the meters didn't explode and so they were safe, dumb shit like that. Seems there were many people who lacked a basic understanding of how much energy 20J is and what it can do.
You still had quite a few meters that jumped around inside the test box. I wouldn't like to be holding one in my hand when you zapped them.
If you were on a ladder then the shock of that happening could still be enough to make you fall off, even if the electricity didn't get to you.
(or step backwards, put your foot in the bucket and fall flat on your arse...)
True but with the small 20J generator or that half cycle setup? Most of the real damage has been when we could use the low voltage generator. Most of the meters I look at anymore would have no problems with it. They have to break down with the new generator to use it.
-
After reading these forums for a few years and hearing multiple similar anecdotes it seems obvious that the designers of these meters know what they're doing and design them to stay in spec. Calibration certificates are mostly for people who need a paper trail for legal reasons.
Seems like a trivial thing to say, but it's true. The voltage references, etc., that go into the meters come with datasheets that specify drift over time. It really is possible to design/engineer things to stay in spec.
Yes, I believe that 'most' meters, even cheapies, stay within their specs. Some just barely, some an order of magnitude better. However, the simple binary question of whether a device stays within specs under calibration conditions is less interesting than the question of whether the reading you are looking at it as accurate as you expect, and if it isn't, why not.
-
Yes, I believe that 'most' meters, even cheapies, stay within their specs. Some just barely, some an order of magnitude better. However, the simple binary question of whether a device stays within specs under calibration conditions is less interesting than the question of whether the reading you are looking at it as accurate as you expect, and if it isn't, why not.
All you can expect is what is in spec. And only way to check it is trough calibration protocol.. And if not, that means it is broken and is due for repair. And adjustment according to protocol..
That is tried and proven protocol by industry to address those questions...
And if some instrument has specs that are unsatisfactory to you, you get one with better specs..
You don't cherry pick between meter types with same nominal spec which ones you think perform better..
Next batch that comes from the factory might be different.
-
....is less interesting than the question of whether the reading you are looking at it as accurate as you expect, and if it isn't, why not.
That's a whole other topic.
Joe is good at injecting all sorts of weird signals to see if they cope. The winner is usually his Fluke 189 with Brymens and Fluke87V as runners up.
-
All you can expect is what is in spec. And only way to check it is trough calibration protocol.. And if not, that means it is broken and is due for repair. And adjustment according to protocol..
That is tried and proven protocol by industry to address those questions...
That might be the correct answer in your domain, due to things like accountability, procedural requirements and wanting a simple answer. But none of those statements are universally true.
It is possible to not get what is 'in spec' from a not-broken meter. Or, you might get an unexpected result that technically is within specs, once you read them carefully, but is not what you want. (This happened to me and although it can be dismissed as 'RTFM', I still think it is interesting).
It is entirely acceptable in some cases to characterize an instrument to use it in an application that requires a tighter spec than that instruments listed uncertainties. And protocols are only necessary where you need paperwork at that stage of the process.
I think the OP has made his decision, so when get time I'll start a new thread with my particular example. Then you can decide whether it is worth discussing or should be dismissed as an inconsequential 'RTFM' case.
-
It is possible to not get what is 'in spec' from a not-broken meter. Or, you might get an unexpected result that technically is within specs, once you read them carefully, but is not what you want. (This happened to me and although it can be dismissed as 'RTFM', I still think it is interesting).
It is entirely acceptable in some cases to characterize an instrument to use it in an application that requires a tighter spec than that instruments listed uncertainties. And protocols are only necessary where you need paperwork at that stage of the process.
I think the OP has made his decision, so when get time I'll start a new thread with my particular example. Then you can decide whether it is worth discussing or should be dismissed as an inconsequential 'RTFM' case.
I'm not disputing what you wrote here.
But as you said, "if you want simple answer", which is the way people usually want it. Of course I want simple answer, I want to use my instruments, not playing with them for the sake of it, fun as it might be.
You cannot characterize instrument to some super tight specs without having advanced equipment and knowledge and time to do it. So I would need 5000-10000 € of equipment to be able to characterize 300 € meter to perform the role of the 500 € meter.... ^-^ Of course you can characterize to tighter spec than original, but in practice it is cheaper, easier and faster to simply buy Keysight 34460 than to characterize BM869S to 0.01% accuracy, although it usually keeps that without problem. 34460 will have that guaranteed by design. You don't have to do anything.
Most users will be in two categories.
One group will buy meter and hope it will be OK, maybe occasionally check it with DMMcheck or one of simple resistor / voltage boxes like on Joe has, as a functional verification...
Others may want to know exactly how accurate their instruments are, so they send them for calibration..
Or you're Voltnut, and pretty much playing with instruments is what you do. Which is fun, but most people are not interested in that.
Getting suboptimal results from user error and not reading manuals is always a possibility, and any time you encounter some interesting scenario that is not obvious, please share it with us.. Knowledge is always welcome.
We just shouldn't confuse metrology practice with instrument capabilities/maintenance/verification.
-
Others may want to know exactly how accurate their instruments are, so they send them for calibration..
And that may be a serious mistake in some instances.
-
Others may want to know exactly how accurate their instruments are, so they send them for calibration..
And that may be a serious mistake in some instances.
For a handheld? Topic here is not Keysight 3458 and calibration history..
-
Calibration in my opinion is a bit of a scam. There are reputable CAL houses out there, but most of the ones I have seen turn the instrument on, do nothing with it, apply calibration sticker and then charge you an arm and a leg. Seen this with my own two eyes, so I know it happens. For most people, having another known good device to see if you are close should be sufficient. We do have contracts at our company where all the instruments used must be NIST traceable. We ultimately charge the customer for this.
Rich
-
Again ignorance of what calibration actually encompasses.
2 parts:
Accuracy verification, which in most cases is all that is required.
Adjustment to meet manufacturers spec. Rarer and more costly.
-
Maybe so, but when a known failed instrument comes back with a Calibration Sticker, not sure who is ignorant in that case.
-
Maybe so, but when a known failed instrument comes back with a Calibration Sticker, not sure who is ignorant in that case.
You. I would ask money back and take my business elsewhere..
-
Precisely what has happened, and at more than one Calibration Facility in the local area. Where I live, its become quite a racket. Funny, NIST is just down the road 45 Minutes! :-//
-
For a handheld? Topic here is not Keysight 3458 and calibration history..
The mistake I was thinking of was sending to the wrong calibration lab. But you're right, I'm not just referring to handheld issues which is why it is time for a new thread...
But, as a final thought on handhelds, I don't like the fact that Brymen has not made the calibration manual available. See my new thread for thoughts on that.
-
Precisely what has happened, and at more than one Calibration Facility in the local area. Where I live, its become quite a racket. Funny, NIST is just down the road 45 Minutes! :-//
Not naming names, but I've seen some stuff..... :o
Part of the problem is the practice of charging a lot more money for as-found and as-left data. Most of the lower end obligatory (they have to have the paper) customers want the cheapest option, so they offer them the no-data or else the OOT data (just the ones that were out of spec). And try asking the sales rep a technical question at some of those outfits. So why charge so much more for data that should be generated automatically with MET/CAL or whatever they are using?
I feel bad for any reputable, conscientious non-OEM cal lab. Their 'competitors' are dragging them all down. I would likely only use an OEM lab at this point.
-
Again ignorance of what calibration actually encompasses.
2 parts:
Accuracy verification, which in most cases is all that is required.
Adjustment to meet manufacturers spec. Rarer and more costly.
Be careful not to generalize. Many times the price is the same, and some OEMs actually always adjust as a default. And the basic service at many cal labs is you get it back with stickers on every external screw and fitting along with a paper that says "It's OK, trust us".
-
Yes, we use a company we trust now. But it's been more than once I have had something like I describe happen, and from three different calibration labs. I too will not name names, but I observed another Calibration Lab in the Hampton Roads area, in person, and I can tell you what they were doing had nothing to do with Calibration. It had to do with selling stickers, and paperwork. It's kind of like home contractors, if you find a good one, pay them what they are worth, because the cut rate outfits here are horrible.
-
Yes, we use a company we trust now. But it's been more than once I have had something like I describe happen, and from three different calibration labs. I too will not name names, but I observed another Calibration Lab in the Hampton Roads area, in person, and I can tell you what they were doing had nothing to do with Calibration. It had to do with selling stickers, and paperwork. It's kind of like home contractors, if you find a good one, pay them what they are worth, because the cut rate outfits here are horrible.
Are they making bank screwing the government? I'm in SoCal, so a different set of labs, but I'm wondering if it might be the same large company that rhymes with Kimco.
-
Again ignorance of what calibration actually encompasses.
2 parts:
Accuracy verification, which in most cases is all that is required.
Adjustment to meet manufacturers spec. Rarer and more costly.
https://www.transcat.com/calibration-services/what-is-calibration (https://www.transcat.com/calibration-services/what-is-calibration)
A calibration is not an adjustment, correction, or repair though. Those are separate actions that could be taken as a result of the calibration action, which is simply to report how much error is in the UUT. If the error exceeds a pre-determined limit (usually the Original Equipment Manufacturer’s warranted performance specifications) then an adjustment or repair may be needed in order to minimize the UUT error.
https://fieldcal.com/calibration/ (https://fieldcal.com/calibration/)
FCI does not charge for adjusting your equipment. That’s correct, no extra fee to adjust your equipment, it is part of our instrument calibration services.
Make sure you understand what's being offered beforehand.
-
I will not even get that close to disclosing names. They know it's tax payer money.
Yes, we use a company we trust now. But it's been more than once I have had something like I describe happen, and from three different calibration labs. I too will not name names, but I observed another Calibration Lab in the Hampton Roads area, in person, and I can tell you what they were doing had nothing to do with Calibration. It had to do with selling stickers, and paperwork. It's kind of like home contractors, if you find a good one, pay them what they are worth, because the cut rate outfits here are horrible.
Are they making bank screwing the government? I'm in SoCal, so a different set of labs, but I'm wondering if it might be the same large company that rhymes with Kimco.
-
Again ignorance of what calibration actually encompasses.
2 parts:
Accuracy verification, which in most cases is all that is required.
Adjustment to meet manufacturers spec. Rarer and more costly.
https://www.transcat.com/calibration-services/what-is-calibration (https://www.transcat.com/calibration-services/what-is-calibration)
A calibration is not an adjustment, correction, or repair though. Those are separate actions that could be taken as a result of the calibration action, which is simply to report how much error is in the UUT. If the error exceeds a pre-determined limit (usually the Original Equipment Manufacturer’s warranted performance specifications) then an adjustment or repair may be needed in order to minimize the UUT error.
https://fieldcal.com/calibration/ (https://fieldcal.com/calibration/)
FCI does not charge for adjusting your equipment. That’s correct, no extra fee to adjust your equipment, it is part of our instrument calibration services.
Make sure you understand what's being offered beforehand.
Quite.
Yet with the instruments I deal with, their service manuals have a large chapter on performance verification and as most modern equipment is closed case calibration accuracy verification is the first step in the calibration process.
Service manuals and datasheets are free to anyone and also list specialist equipment requirements for adjustments which in this day and age is a PC with specialist SW, a automated calibration script and a universal calibrator.
Therefore if a Cal lab hasn't got a universal calibrator and your instrument is out way of whack then run a mile ! :scared:
Hopefully they will have sufficient other traceable equipment to at least do performance verification and if so can provide a legit Cal cert if your instrument still meets OEM spec.
Luckily in 8 years in this game not one customer AFAIK has required the Cal services of the 2 NZ companies I would recommend.
-
...
Most users will be in two categories.
One group will buy meter and hope it will be OK, maybe occasionally check it with DMMcheck or one of simple resistor / voltage boxes like on Joe has, as a functional verification...
Others may want to know exactly how accurate their instruments are, so they send them for calibration..
Or you're Voltnut, and pretty much playing with instruments is what you do. Which is fun, but most people are not interested in that.
...
I certainly do fall into the first category for the most part. Testing the meters, I really only want to know if I have damaged them. The box makes for a quick sanity check. Some of the parts in that box are fairly decent but it's not for calibration. I have aligned a few handheld meters myself after repairs. I have a box of resistors and capacitors that I will use to get me in the ballpark. Most resistors are 10 ppm and lower. The box has an Apex VRE305AS 5V reference but to set the meters, I use my old HP bench meter. I attempted to build a source meter that I use to measure the battery life of the meters and for other tests. I used it recently to align a meter. The source isn't very good. Well, the readout isn't all that good. Two plots were taken at the same time, one from the source meter, the other from my hold HP. Still for basic alignment of these handheld meters, it's good enough for me.
The bench meters and one of my scopes have baby papers but nothing current. The endless story of a hobbyist on a budget.
-
...
You aren't going to see a lot of 'innovation' in handheld general-purpose DMMs because they are a mature product. People will hang flashlights on them and put in bluetooth comms or whatever else the fad of the day is, but I don't see the general functions changing or improving in any significant way. Some might even say they've gone too far already.
In many ways I do believe that we are seeing a bunch of useless features on mutimeters, at least in the form currently being delivered. One good example is the capacitance function on many multimeters that for the most part is not of much use. This especially considering that very good handheld LCR meters exist that do a much better job.
As for room for innovation I do believe there is plenty of possibilities available. The trick would be t make new features worthwhile and not close to useless lick many of the capacitance functions out there. Bluetooth is a good example of an innovation that would be very useful if manufactures would learn to leverage it. An app that runs on a Bluetooth enable watch should exist for any meter claiming to offer Bluetooth support. Along with that open source software should exist to make it easy to use those Bluetooth capable meters on the various PC operating systems. I never understood the need manufactures have to make using their hardware difficult in conjunction with general purpose computing devices. It should be easy for me to write an app that connects to a Bluetooth capable meter.
Other things like large displays that deliver multiple parameters to the user should be high on any meter manufactures list. One usage here is ACV measurements that also display frequency. Back in the day I hardly ever saw a VFD, these days they are as common as grass. Now the real trick is getting such a simultaneous display to work well. Oh and my pet peeve, give me a battery system that doesn't LEAK.
In general I think you are right, the hand held meter these days pretty much is well defined. There is room for innovation but the basic functionality has been zeroed in on long ago.
-
In many ways I do believe that we are seeing a bunch of useless features on mutimeters, at least in the form currently being delivered. One good example is the capacitance function on many multimeters that for the most part is not of much use. This especially considering that very good handheld LCR meters exist that do a much better job.
For one, that measurement was, i believe, driven mostly by people repairing household appliances with single phase induction motors (that was huge market), and many single phase motors in industry (pumps and such). Built in capacitance function in meters was more than adequate to check various blocking and starting capacitors, and meters are also safe to use on charged ones...
LCR meters are notoriously underprotected for that job.
Multimeters are not only for electronics at the desk in controlled environment.Most of them, are, in fact not used for fine electronics at desk. Other markets are much larger..
Many years ago (more than 20..) there was already Wavetek DM27XT that had full LCR and frequency measurement.... Not a bad instrument either.. But nobody followed the trend, it seems market didn't think it was necessary...
I agree about battery system. That definitely can be made more robust.
One thing manufacturers could do is separate AC and DC measurement path with separate ranging (so DC is in 600 V, and AC is in 400mV), that would yield much faster AC+DC measurements too.
One other thing they could do is to add additional current measurement path, isolated one, to make real VA measurements.. There are benchtop meter with that..
But those would add lots of electronics, and would be battery guzzlers.. And also not everybody would use that, meaning limited market..
They could add math or this or that, and there would always be some people who would find it useful and many that wouldn't.
I personally would like standardized PC/phone connectivity (both cable and bluetooth) and protocol, and few advanced log/analysis softwares.
-
I would like to see an event counter. Say the voltage or resistance changes by some threshold. Even if it could only work to 1Hz and required 500ms, it would be helpful in many cases.
A sealed battery pack would be nice although, I have not had a leakage problem after changing to rechargeable batteries.
-
My old Gossen 26S has an event counter for voltage. 0.5Hz max. Set low and high thresholds first.
-
I wonder why it didn't catch on.
Dave made a video some time ago where he was trying to count laps of a toy train going around a track. It seemed he was struggling to get it to work. With so many features in the 121GW, surprised it wasn't included.
-
My Keysights 1273A and U1282A count events just fine via a voltage threshold - one of the trigger options of the datalogging feature.
-
Looks like it's limited to 10,000 counts. Or does it continue to count after the memory is full?
-
Looks like it's limited to 10,000 counts. Or does it continue to count after the memory is full?
I don't remember if it wraps around or is limited - after all, it is a data logging feature and therefore it uses its internal memory to store the voltage as well.
However, with the proper USB cable and software I vaguely recall it can count indefinitely.
-
Looks like it's limited to 10,000 counts. Or does it continue to count after the memory is full?
I don't remember if it wraps around or is limited - after all, it is a data logging feature and therefore it uses its internal memory to store the voltage as well.
However, with the proper USB cable and software I vaguely recall it can count indefinitely.
Adding a PC with some software may allow many meters to count events but then again, with the PC, there's little need for a meter. The meter would be nice as you have all the signal conditioning already along with a display, running off a battery.
-
Well... It is what it is - a datalgger that counts events. Better than nothing.
A custom specific counter is easy to put together anyways... 😁
-
As I said, I watched Dave seeming to struggle to convert a calculator into an event counter. Agree that pretty much anyone with some basic skill could spend time making a counter, easier for some than others. I wouldn't mind having that feature built-in to a handheld meter as I could trigger on voltage, current, resistance.
The idea of having a trigger with the data logging seems unique. None of the handheld meters I have support anything like that. They all use a fixed sampling interval.
-
The idea of having a trigger with the data logging seems unique. None of the handheld meters I have support anything like that. They all use a fixed sampling interval.
The Keysights are great on logging. Another mode is the "autohold-like" trigger that Dave used in his ancient video of the resistor tolerance box redux - a steady measurement triggers the datalogger and stores the measurement. Quite handy on a few cases as well, but you need to have a well-oiled process.
Ah, found the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSmiDzbVt_U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSmiDzbVt_U)
-
Looks like it's limited to 10,000 counts. Or does it continue to count after the memory is full?
The Gossen 26S counts events up to 100,000 over 10 hours (DC or AC voltage) without PC connection. Total time of test and time spent over high threshold are also displayed.
Additionally, it has a zero crossing counter and a stopwatch.
A function generator is also included (3Vpp), continuous or as a set train of pulses, up to a frequency of 1,000 Hz.
Min/Max values have a time stamp (accurate clock and date)
Most of the meters in the old Metra Hit S series (29S 28S 26S/26M 25S 18S) had the counter feature. The latest meters don't have it anymore, except for the S Energy.
-
Looks like it's limited to 10,000 counts. Or does it continue to count after the memory is full?
I will have to conduct some research, but I believe the 10K number may be extended upwards on the 1282 when using the MeterLoger application. I have two 1282’s and I used them count and notify when an event had taken place, and when I was in the throws of it, remember having an enormous amount of events that I had to record and document over an extensive period of time.
I have not used this feature in a year, but I think I can pull the manual and find out for sure how many, if any above 10K the 1282 can record/document when used with MeterLoger.
-
Maybe so, but when a known failed instrument comes back with a Calibration Sticker, not sure who is ignorant in that case.
You. I would ask money back and take my business elsewhere..
Nope. Calibration isn't "adjustment" (or "alignment", or whatever you want to call it).
Calibration is just noting what the meter says on screen when used to measure known-good references and giving you a certificate/paper trail for those readings. That's it.
If your meter is broken, they'll note the broken values on the calibration certificate and charge you the same amount as for a good meter.
Calibration in my opinion is a bit of a scam.
You're paying for the paper trail, nothing more, nothing less. It's like paying a notary to notarize a document. The amount notaries charge for a couple of minutes work is ridiculous, but can be necessary.
-
For most people, having another known good device to see if you are close should be sufficient.
Yep, and this is one of the main reasons you need more than one meter. It can't be repeated often enough.
-
Maybe so, but when a known failed instrument comes back with a Calibration Sticker, not sure who is ignorant in that case.
You. I would ask money back and take my business elsewhere..
Nope. Calibration isn't "adjustment" (or "alignment", or whatever you want to call it).
Calibration is just noting what the meter says on screen when used to measure known-good references and giving you a certificate/paper trail for those readings. That's it.
If your meter is broken, they'll note the broken values on the calibration certificate and charge you the same amount as for a good meter.
Wrong.
If it fails performance verification guardbands, you will get "calibration FAILED" sticker or none, and a report with measurements and a bill.
Sticker should be "In spec" decal. Otherwise it makes no sense..
-
If your meter is broken, they'll note the broken values on the calibration certificate and charge you the same amount as for a good meter.
Wrong. If it fails performance verification guardbands, you will get "calibration FAILED" sticker or none, and a report with measurements and a bill.
Sticker should be "In spec" decal. Otherwise it makes no sense..
OK, you get a sticker, too.
The point is that it isn't anything to do with modifying/adjusting the meter, as many people seem to think. It's merely a performance report with verifiable paper trail.
-
Fungus - While I enjoy your cherry picking my posts to make points that coincide with your narrative, you seem to leave out the fact these instruments I refer to, in many cases, were sent back malfunctioning and were INOP going in.. I do not care what you proclaim calibration consist of, instruments that cant even make through initial boot, should not be issues a CAL sticker, or traceability paperwork.. Maybe in your world, yes, in mine, that is absurd and nothing more than a scam..
quote author=Fungus link=topic=262674.msg3388730#msg3388730 date=1609112923]
Maybe so, but when a known failed instrument comes back with a Calibration Sticker, not sure who is ignorant in that case.
You. I would ask money back and take my business elsewhere..
Nope. Calibration isn't "adjustment" (or "alignment", or whatever you want to call it).
Calibration is just noting what the meter says on screen when used to measure known-good references and giving you a certificate/paper trail for those readings. That's it.
If your meter is broken, they'll note the broken values on the calibration certificate and charge you the same amount as for a good meter.
Calibration in my opinion is a bit of a scam.
You're paying for the paper trail, nothing more, nothing less. It's like paying a notary to notarize a document. The amount notaries charge for a couple of minutes work is ridiculous, but can be necessary.
[/quote]
-
Calibration is just noting what the meter says on screen when used to measure known-good references and giving you a certificate/paper trail for those readings. That's it.
If your meter is broken, they'll note the broken values on the calibration certificate and charge you the same amount as for a good meter.
Calibration is (or is supposed to be) whatever the calibration service provider states that it is. If they make that statement by reference to Z540.1, Z540.3 or ISO 17025 or some other standard, then that service should additionally be compliant with that standard.
A typical industry-facing production calibration service will offer flat-rate all-in-one calibration services for common instruments where annual calibration is required for regulatory or ISO-type reasons. This is an expense for the business, so cheaper is better in many cases--just the required paper is all they want. If the calibration service for a meter or similar instrument states 'no data' or 'OOT data', that means that if your instrument is within the stipulated specifications (which are often the wrong specs, IMO) it will be returned to you with calibration sticker(s) attached and a document that states that it was within specifications, but without specifying the actual measurements or in it a least some cases, the actual specifications used, the assumption apparently being that if none are stated, the manufacturers specs (but which ones?) are used as a default. Typically, if the meter is out of specifications and can be adjusted, it will be, sometimes at additional charge and sometimes included in the flat-rate service. And, typically, if the meter cannot be adjusted to meet the specifications, it will be returned with a 'REJECT' sticker and an explanation.
If you purchase this service from a less-than-honorable calibration lab, otherwise known as the low bidder with the most aggressive sales department, your calibration technician may be undertrained, overworked and poorly equipped. Since there is no data provided, they can simply attach the stickers and send it back, hoping that the instrument is OK but still having the defense that it may have failed in the delivery truck on the way back to you. How often does that happen? At least some of the time from what I've seen--and that is what AJ3G is referring to. And at least some of their customers are OK with that as far as I can tell. That's why I wouldn't pay a nickel extra for any test equipment with a recent calibration sticker.
-
I do not care what you proclaim calibration consist of, instruments that cant even make through initial boot, should not be issues a CAL sticker, or traceability paperwork.. Maybe in your world, yes, in mine, that is absurd and nothing more than a scam..
Of course it should.
If you're paying for a service, they should provide that service. It should go on record (paper trail and all) that the device is not fit for purpose and the it should come back with a "failed" sticker and matching certificate.
There's no "scam", if you send them a device that won't boot or pass basic tests then that's your problem, not theirs.
A "scam" would be if they don't provide the service, eg.
If you purchase this service from a less-than-honorable calibration lab, otherwise known as the low bidder with the most aggressive sales department, your calibration technician may be undertrained, overworked and poorly equipped. Since there is no data provided, they can simply attach the stickers and send it back, hoping that the instrument is OK but still having the defense that it may have failed in the delivery truck on the way back to you.
That^s a scam.
-
That's why I wouldn't pay a nickel extra for any test equipment with a recent calibration sticker.
If it was a reputable lab you should call them and/or look up the calibration number in their database to verify it.
But no, a sticker means nothing. A device can be damaged/misused within minutes after it comes back from calibration.
-
That's why I wouldn't pay a nickel extra for any test equipment with a recent calibration sticker.
If it was a reputable lab you should call them and/or look up the calibration number in their database to verify it.
But no, a sticker means nothing. A device can be damaged/misused within minutes after it comes back from calibration.
True. But at least there is a good chance the measurements made in between two consecutive passed calibrations are OK. If you are doing any important measurements, you can send your instrument to calibration afterwards to verify it.
Of course, if what you measure isn't important. Don't.
-
Actually in my world what you are describing is validation. Calibration is the act of adjust a device to be in spec. Now a broken device can fail both a validation or a calibration, which then means it needs to be repaired or junked and replaced. If repaired the device will then need to be calibrated and often the tool it goes in will need to be validated.
Maybe so, but when a known failed instrument comes back with a Calibration Sticker, not sure who is ignorant in that case.
You. I would ask money back and take my business elsewhere..
Nope. Calibration isn't "adjustment" (or "alignment", or whatever you want to call it).
Calibration is just noting what the meter says on screen when used to measure known-good references and giving you a certificate/paper trail for those readings. That's it.
If your meter is broken, they'll note the broken values on the calibration certificate and charge you the same amount as for a good meter.
Calibration in my opinion is a bit of a scam.
You're paying for the paper trail, nothing more, nothing less. It's like paying a notary to notarize a document. The amount notaries charge for a couple of minutes work is ridiculous, but can be necessary.