The Fluke 87V vs the Brymen BM869s transient testing
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 10. 2015
- Previously I had tested an 87V at 13KV to determine if it was robust as the low cost Fluke 101. This led to confusion and raised questions about what level the 87V would have failed. In this video I attempt to determine if the Fluke 87V is as electrically robust as the Brymen BM869s.
- Věda a technologie
This is a lot of work you're doing Sir. Thank you for your impartial approach.
I think it's great to test stuff to the limit, although I could never afford to do something like that to a Fluke meter! Yeah, it's rated to CAT IV, but what happens when you exceed that? Test the limits. It's called science. Keep it up!
By the way, got myself a Brymen BM869S after watching your videos. Love it!
+Jack Zimmermann Glad you enjoyed the videos. Really like my Brymen as well.
I have a Brymen BM867s and I'm extremely happy with it, I many other hand held meters, including a few Fluke 25's and 27's and its the Brymen that I reach for almost everytime, keep the videos coming, I always enjoy them.
Thanks.
Hello. You said that you replaced the the diodes in the 87-V once before. Now the diodes fail at surprisingly low 1.5kV. Is it possible that replacement diodes were not direct replacement for OE diodes, or that replacement diodes did not live up to spec?
Thank you for a very eye opening video.
I take that Fluke is a 87 Mk5 not a V?
After uni-t fried, I am started to looking to those Brymen 869s. Interesting what s mean marking "HBC" fused? Is it miss print? Should it be "HRC"? Or just "Fused" as fluke did? I ve faund a company HBC which is producing ceramic fuses, does maybe Brymen means that???
+FISHERMAN33RUS High Break Capacity and High Rupture Capacity.
Hey I just recalled another instance where a Fluke 87 was not up to par. I once got a complaint that one of our products did not pass EMI immunity, after some experimentation I found the 87 was displaying garbage. A ferrite in the leads to the meter solved the problem. In that particular test RF was coupled into a DC supply line, common mode. The 87 was monitoring the voltage on that supply. The frequency range was 20-50MHz, with a couple volts amplitude.
That reminds me of two more similar cases actually. One time I was testing for immunity to 440MHz (radiated) and found Fluke 45 bench meters are quite sensitive to this. They would just go dark and reset. Another time I was measuring the output of a full bridge converter, about 30Vpp 20kHz square with quite nasty ringing edges (but at no point more than 100Vpp). I tried to measure AC current or voltage, and the handheld meter I was using just locked up. I don't recall if this was a Fluke or Norma, it was so many years ago. I went for an analog meter then and it was fine.
It might be interesting to see how different meters react to RF interference.
+stefantrethan Let me think about it.
Where can I find those input covers on the bryman?
What sort of dust plugs are you using to plug your amp measurement ports, and where can I get some?
The ones I use now are from Cap Plugs. I show them in my UT210E video where I modified it. These came from an old CEM meter.
tengo unos equipo que me los dañaron seria posible de aya un sito donde pueda mandar a reparar no hablo ingles solo español
What kind of rubber covers are those on the current sockets from Brymen?
They were off a CEM meter I had damaged.
Donde puedo conseguir un multimetro Brymen, el BM829s
Given that there are so many 87 around, what does this tell us?
I mean I have seen that damn switch go bad, but none with a failed input like that.
I know, I know, you never claimed anything other than robustness to this particular pulse, but does this tell me even at 1.5kV I am unlikely to encounter any problems in daily use?
I spent today surge testing as well, a Fluke 87 was connected, but not directly to the surge. ;-)
What are those plugs that you have in the amp port in the 869
Do you find it? im interested too
Would not lend you my 87v to measure ohms with 1.5 kv transients around.
There's only one bad thing about my brymen multimeters and that is the viewing angle. From the bottom up and from side to side it's ok, but looking down from top to bottom one can almost see nothing.On the other hand i use it most of the time on the bench
I see your Brymen got a S at the end where the ones we can buy here in SA don't have it?
When I reviewed the eevblog rebranded brymen, I show several meters including the bm869s at various angles. To me they all looked pretty good.
Mjlorton speak about this as well. Maybe Brymen has improved their lcd displays lately because my meters must be the older ones, they just don't have great viewing angles
I just checked my EEVBLOG BM235 and I see what you are talking about. I don't really see how that is much of an issue though. If you happen to place the meter below you just close the tilting bail and place it flat on the surface. All else fails, move it, I've got the magnetic hook so I can stick it to any metal surface if I don't have a flat surface available. This is the beauty of handheld meters.
I hope that you please want to answer my maybe stupid question:-)
For me it looks like the Brymen BM869s is a bette choice then the Fluke 87V, in accuracy, build, resolution, features, price and yes in everything except the guarantee?
Again, if you take the time to read the FAQ you will find I do not make recommendations. Outside of the tests that I have ran on these meters, I really can't offer if there are other metrics where one may prove better than the other.
@@joesmith-je3tq Yes I do understand that you can't comment on anything you have not
tested:-) And I am sorry for my purely question, English is not my first
language. The reason for me still asking you is that you, in my opinion,
have the most thorough test of all on CZcams! :-) What I am asking is,
based on your tests and knowledge of the exact units you tested and own,
if your Bryemen could be a serious alternative to your Fluke, well
knowing that other test and opinions could show different results and your answer is only an opinion not a statement to relay upon. :-)
@@friedmule5403 If the videos I produced still do not provide you with enough data to answer your own questions, I suggest you use the EEVBLOG.com website along with their search engine. There have been several discussions on this subject.
www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/if-brymen-bm869s-is-cheaper-and-as-good-why-people-would-still-buy-fluke/
@@joesmith-je3tq there is guaranteed nothing wrong with your fantastic videos, what are missing is my confident in making the right decision!
All are screaming "bye Fluke, bye Fluke" but I think that I can conclude that the Brymen is better, based on your videos. Therefor is my lack of knowledge (beginner in electronic) and my indecision so visible.
But thanks a lot for taking your time to answer my questions!! :-)
@@friedmule5403 Screaming?? That's a lot of drama for a bit of test equipment. If you took the time to read that thread I provided the link to, you found a lot of people suggesting to buy Fluke. Personally, the problem I have with them is that they just don't offer products that I would use for electronics. I can't fault Fluke for targeting their products towards electricians. I'm sure that is where the sales are.
Keep in mind that I have said that up to running these tests, I never spent more than $50 on a handheld meter. However, what I was use them for was not real demanding (low voltage automotive work). I've said that after I bought the BM869s, I started to use it rather than my HP bench meters. It's not a replacement but does most of what I need.
All that aside, you specifically asked about the 87V. You know I have ran them and they held up well in the transient tests. I'm a little disappointed in the switch life cycle testing. It's not a meter that I would have a use for but it my fit your needs just fine. Good luck with your new tool, what ever brand and model you end up with. My only advice is don't be too quick to purchase if you are not sure of what your needs even are.
The blurb on the latest packaging for the 87 V says it will take 8 KV spikes.
You may be interested in the following: czcams.com/video/GhslaLKOpKE/video.html
@@joesmith-je3tq Thanks!
this multimeter is obtained with the green lee brand the DM860A, but the DM830A is the same as the fluke 87 v with a little more functions these green lee multimeter are excellent nothing to compare to fluke
That your opinion of the Brymen 869? Fluke choose it before ?. Thank you. Greetings.
+jose carlos sanchez Fluke does not offer a meter that I would want for my hobby use. If the battery life and boot times were not so bad on the Fluke 289, I would have one. If I find something I like better than the 869s, I'll get it.
I am going to buy the 867s, any good?
There is a spreadsheet available showing the meters I have ran and the data I have collected from them.
May I please have the link to that spreadsheet.
Go to the main page, select about or discussion. Both have links to the spreadsheet and FAQ.
Thnks, NT=Not tested? Brymen 869 was in the list but i suppose 867 would more or less have the same results.
Yes, NT = Not Tested. Right, I ran my Brymen BM869s. I have no idea how the 867 would behave without running one.
Are you saying that the 87v is not recommended to buy? Or not safe? You made pretty bad comments about the UT139c failing at 4kV. What's the whole idea of this testing if the most praised device failed at 1.5kV? This test now looks more like kids game!
All hail Brymen!!! I was actually looking if the UT139C was worth a try!
I guess your having a hard time understanding what is going on in the videos. I've been pretty clear from the start that these tests have nothing to do with safety. I thought I also have made it clear that it would be next to impossible to make recommendations. These tests have always been about determining which meters were more robust than others using a standard test method.
A fair comparison would be a Fluke 289 vs Brymen 869.
All of the meters are tested the same.
Like your videos wished i watch this one before I bought my 87v. But it still does the job.
With all of the videos Fluke shows testing this meter and as robust as their low end Chinese meters have been, I am VERY surprised the 87V did so poorly in these tests. But, again that's the whole point of running them to some fixed standard. While I am sure there are many Fluke fans that don't like seeing how poor it performed, there is little I can do beyond telling them not to watch.
I looked at buying the 289 when I bought the Brymen. The 289 is one of the few meters they still offer with AC+DC. It's just too slow and I wanted some of the additional features the BM869s offered. I did make a video with a friend's 289 comparing it with the UNI-T 181A. I would hope the 289 was more robust than the 181A was but I really don't know without testing one. czcams.com/video/PjNXbKlr3MI/video.html
I would amit that I am a fluke fan boy because thats all I knew. Living in a third world country we are more exposed to the big names like fluke and keysight.
Hello you have reason that the brymen s best but under the tests performed by the fluke 87v, brymen 869 exceeds specifications, on 87v is for industrial use and brymen is for use in electronic signals in an electronic laboratory or repairs of electronic equipment fluke is not suitable for this use.
Perhaps the fluke is more expensive for the customer service that also easily get all the parts.
IMHO you should compare multimeters who are an the same category or would like comparing 600cc and 400cc motorcycles 600cc is always faster than the 400cc regardless of price.
greetings, very good your videos
Glad you are enjoying them. That Brymen BM869s was the first meter certified for Cat IV 1000V. For some reason that does not strike me as an electronic lab environment. I am not here to debate or try and justify the cost of any of these meters. I am only presenting how robust electrically their designs are. I run these tests because I am interested in how the meters compare with one another. I then make the data available to the public free of charge. You're always welcome to run your own tests with motorcycles or meters.
Test Fluke 28 ex
I'm not really interested in this meter.
hello. fluke 87v transistor code number?
Are you asking about the device that was damaged?
yes. fluke 87v
What is the name of the attached piece
Could it be bav99? My fluke 87 has the same problem.
I was affected by high voltage. Ohm step is problem.
5k575 varistor problem. problem solved ok
Sorry for the lack of response. YT for what ever reason does not always show responses. Glad you found the problem.
I don't understand the point of testing these meters beyond their specifications. It says right on the front of the Brymen: "1000v" with CAT IV; why go beyond this? You NEED that high voltage probe you showed in another video if you even suspect transients are above spec limits -- unless you are as brief as, say, an ESD pulse.
+tkarlmann I am not sure what you are asking.
+tkarlmann To be clear as it seems you missed the description, these videos are my attempt at seeing which meters are more electrically robust than others. All meters are subjected to the same set of tests.
I am not sure what "brief" is. The ESD pulse is going to be measured in the ns. I do run a sort of ESD test on these meters using a Piezo ignitor. Two of the UNI-T meters were damaged during this test.
While the IEC standards call for a 50us FWHH, I have been running all of the low voltage (< 6KV) with a 100us FWHH. The higher transients are now being ran with a 50us FWHH. This would allow someone to repeat these tests. Keep in mind that those combo generator's current waveform will be much different. The new generator I built is still limited to around 20 joules on the high end. The majority of the testing is below 10 joules! Nothing like the real IEC. If you want to see some real damage, watch some of Fluke surge test videos.
While the meter is marked CAT IV 1000 this calls for a 12KV, 1.2/50 us surge with a 2 ohm source. Granted, Brymen told me they expected the meter would be damaged when I ran the 6KV transient. I was impressed when it survived.
Using the high voltage probe does not make a lot of sense. None of the once I show, including my home made ones are rated for high energy applications.
Hope this helps.
joe smith : Yes it Does! If you are testing within the Specs of CAT IV, then my apologies! I thought you were testing to failure for some unknown reason. And yes, I know some mfr's put "CAT" ratings on their meters, when the have not done ANY of the required testing to substantiate that. Good Job -- I have had Brymen meters on my To-Get List for awhile now -- you've helped.
No need for an apology. I just wanted to try and clear up what was going on. I have ran many meters far beyond their ratings to the point of failure. The Fluke 107 for example has a CAT III 600V rating which would call for a 1.2/50us 6KV 2 ohm source. I pushed this meter to 14KV 100us 2 ohm source and it was not damaged. This gives us some idea of how much margin Fluke has added to the design of this meter.
As much as I am not a fan of Fluke, I have to admit that some of their products are far more robust than anything else I have looked at.
The Brymen BM869s I tested my not be as robust electrically as say the Fluke 107 was but it sure has a lot of very nice features and held up much better than the Fluke 87V.
Also, if it is not clear, I am not affiliated with any of the DMM manufacturers or their suppliers. They are all paid for out of pocket or out of donations from people like TechnologyCatalyst. Check out his blog for detailed reviews on some of the meters I have tested.
If you buy a Brymen, I would be interested in knowing what one you end up with and how it works out for you.
joe smith I am intending to buy a couple/few BM869s meters. I saw this meter first on an old EEVblog episode. I much prefer it, sight unseen, over Fluke. Oh, are you familiar with EEVblog's sort-of expose on the Fluke 87's susceptibility to cell phones?
How is it surprising that a meter fails when you put over 1000 volts in the wrong modes. ???
You may want to start by reading the FAQ. You can find it in the top of the very first post: www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hear-kitty-kitty-kitty-nope-not-that-kind-of-cat/
That's FLUKE 87 "5" not "V". The fifth modification of 87 meter.
Brymen? who?
Well, did you ever tried to develop something and pass EMC tests? I guess no. Do you know how surge protection components work? I guess you have no idea. The energy of surge pulse is enormous.The way you are testing is nonsense. The standard is defining sequence of pulses to simulate possible real situation. It means that after each applying of this pulse sequence is required to let device protection circuits cool down (if standard does not say to repeat twice etc.). Otherwise you will face situation, that circuits must be 10-20 times stronger than necessary. You are simply destroying them by heat accumulated by quick repetition of test sequences. There is no time to even transfer accumulated energy from chip to package. And this is exactly what you are doing. So remove all multimeters from trash and start again please. I do not say that multimeter which survived your handling is bad. But it does not mean that others are not fulfilling standards. They are just not so "idiot resistant".
Sorry but I missed your comment. It seems you do not comprehend what is going on so once again, let me attempt to explain. Let's start with some basics. The EMC standard is different from the safety standard. The EMC standard is 61326. The safety standard is 61010. Your comments are about surge, so I'll assume this is just a mistake on your part. You are correct, the energy in a combo generator that would normally be used for the 61010 is pretty high. Consider that this is just the energy available. It's not the energy that will normally be dissipated by the device being tested. Next consider that my generator is not a combo. I have made this clear from day one. It has NEVER been my goal to look at the meters from a safety standpoint. So while my generators may closely replicate the open circuit waveforms from 61010, they are no where near what the short circuit case calls for. Again, I've explained the reasons for this several times and it should not need repeating. Consider that most meters have failed with much less than 10J applied! While testing the first batch of meters, I did not have 10J available until the finals where the Fluke 101 finally came out on top. Many of the meters are damaged before I get to the surge test. They are just that bad. In the case of the 87V, I agree that I would have never expected it to fail at such low levels. By far it was the worst of the Flukes I have looked at.
I think that comment above it is not just about this video, the standard (both you mentioned) are defining the tests precisely, including minimum gaps between pulses. In case you will take meter and test it the way that you do: apply certain level of pulse quickly one after another without limitation, after some amount of pulses will be protection circuits destroyed by accumulated heat. It is just about design reserve. And standard says also which inputs should be tested like this.
It seems like another video, where guy takes hammer, iPod and destroys it. Hey Internet! iPod did not survive! It is useless! You can not use it instead of anvil! Buy some Nokia 5110 instead, it survives much bigger impacts! .... well, for some people it can make sense - may be...
" after some amount of pulses will be protection circuits destroyed by accumulated heat" Why do you feel this is a concern?
@P?T> In real time, Joe's PTG takes quite long to charge between each pulse, and it shuts its charger off every time a 5/-5 serie is finished. Hardly unlimited pulsing, you're just imagining what you want to see.
Measurement cats have little to nothing to do with robustness. 61010 is a S A F E T Y standard. As explained many, many times before, no one's pondering safety here, so arguing every bit of standard being followed is beside the point. 61010-2-033 prescribes bias voltage (400V RMS or less) combined with much higher available energy levels for pulsing - word available being the key here. None of that is used in these tests.
Destroyed by accumulated heat? The guy had just explained in response to previous comment that DUT is not what normally dissipates the energy, but it apparently didn't get through to you. He's not simply discharching capacitor banks one after another into multimeters, dummy. :}