I am considering purchasing a Fluke meter to do some
alignments & repairs here.
Can anyone reccomend a Fluke meter model or anothere brand model?

73 &
thanks for all replies,
CLinT

remove ... "SO" to reply

A cheap digital one from Maplin or RS will be just as accurate, save loads
by not paying for a name.

"CLinT" wrote in message
...
I am considering purchasing a Fluke meter to do some
alignments & repairs here.
Can anyone reccomend a Fluke meter model or anothere brand model?

73 &
thanks for all replies,
CLinT

remove ... "SO" to reply

Kyle2 wrote:
A cheap digital one from Maplin or RS will be just as accurate, save loads
by not paying for a name.

"CLinT" wrote in message
...
I am considering purchasing a Fluke meter to do some
alignments & repairs here.
Can anyone reccomend a Fluke meter model or anothere brand model?

73 &
thanks for all replies,
CLinT

remove ... "SO" to reply


I prefer a Fluke anyway. This is why:
When measuring resistances in a cabinet with a running Variable
Frequency Drive I got nothing but house numbers with the feature
rich no-name-multimeter, that I was using by then. When using
a Fluke I got correct readings. The reason: The cheap MM was
sensitive to the RFI, which the VFD generated - the Fluke was
undisturbed by the massive RFI. That was the model 77 which
is old now. But you may find a used one as a bargain.
If you want to measure with strong RF-fields present then there
is a difference and you get what you pay for. TANSTAAFL.
If you go for bench meters also konsider used Keithleys and
BBC Metrawatt.

Kind regards, Eike

In article ,
says...

I prefer a Fluke anyway. This is why:
When measuring resistances in a cabinet with a running Variable
Frequency Drive I got nothing but house numbers with the feature
rich no-name-multimeter, that I was using by then. When using
a Fluke I got correct readings. The reason: The cheap MM was
sensitive to the RFI, which the VFD generated - the Fluke was
undisturbed by the massive RFI. That was the model 77 which
is old now. But you may find a used one as a bargain.
If you want to measure with strong RF-fields present then there
is a difference and you get what you pay for. TANSTAAFL.

On the other hand, I almost reached the point of insanity with a brand-
new Fluke 65 IR thermometer awhile back, trying to measure my car's
exhaust header temperatures with it. Every time I held it at the
(extremely awkward) position and orientation needed to aim the laser at
any of the exhaust ports, it would shut itself off.

The only thing that stopped me from sending it back to Circuit
Specialists for a refund was the fact that it would *only* shut off when
used under the hood of the car. I could never reproduce the problem
anywhere else around the house.

The problem turned out to be EMI from the Electromotive HPV aftermarket
ignition system. (After turning the ignition off, the thermometer
stopped shutting down.) Caveat mensor.

-- jm

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx
Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
------------------------------------------------------

Fluke's DMMs do cost much more than generic ones. They guarantee accuracy
that the others can't touch. I've always been amused that Radio Shack and
many other inexpensive DMMs don't publish accuracy specifications.

If you want something for relative measurements (peaking, etc) and hobby
use, you have a wider field available. If you use it for a living and it
*has* to work - well, my Fluke 87 has served *me* wonderfully well. But
modern IC technology has certainly made a lot of capability available for
little cost elsewhere!

Jim WB9SYN/6 (Not affiliated with Fluke)

"James Horn" wrote in message
...
Fluke's DMMs do cost much more than generic ones. They guarantee accuracy
that the others can't touch. I've always been amused that Radio Shack and
many other inexpensive DMMs don't publish accuracy specifications.

If you want something for relative measurements (peaking, etc) and hobby
use, you have a wider field available. If you use it for a living and it
*has* to work - well, my Fluke 87 has served *me* wonderfully well. But
modern IC technology has certainly made a lot of capability available for
little cost elsewhere!

Jim WB9SYN/6 (Not affiliated with Fluke)

Some of the cheep meters are fine for most home use. It is when you drop
them or accidently have them set for current or ohms while measuring voltage
you will notice the differance. Then again you can buy about 10 RS meters
for what a good Fluke will cost. It sure is hard to quit working long
enough to run to RS to get another meter while on a job that depends on
having a meter.

James Horn wrote,

Fluke's DMMs do cost much more than generic ones. They guarantee accuracy
that the others can't touch. I've always been amused that Radio Shack and
many other inexpensive DMMs don't publish accuracy specifications.


Actually, RS does specify the accuracy of at least one multimeter in
the manual for that meter: the RS digital multimeter PN 22-812. I sure
wouldn't depend on a Radio Shack multimeter in a work environment, though.
The ruggedness just isn't there.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"James Horn" wrote in message
...
Fluke's DMMs do cost much more than generic ones. They guarantee accuracy
that the others can't touch. I've always been amused that Radio Shack and
many other inexpensive DMMs don't publish accuracy specifications.

If you want something for relative measurements (peaking, etc) and hobby
use, you have a wider field available. If you use it for a living and it
*has* to work - well, my Fluke 87 has served *me* wonderfully well. But
modern IC technology has certainly made a lot of capability available for
little cost elsewhere!

Jim WB9SYN/6 (Not affiliated with Fluke)

Some of the cheep meters are fine for most home use. It is when you drop
them or accidently have them set for current or ohms while measuring voltage
you will notice the differance. Then again you can buy about 10 RS meters
for what a good Fluke will cost. It sure is hard to quit working long
enough to run to RS to get another meter while on a job that depends on
having a meter.

James Horn wrote,

Fluke's DMMs do cost much more than generic ones. They guarantee accuracy
that the others can't touch. I've always been amused that Radio Shack and
many other inexpensive DMMs don't publish accuracy specifications.


Actually, RS does specify the accuracy of at least one multimeter in
the manual for that meter: the RS digital multimeter PN 22-812. I sure
wouldn't depend on a Radio Shack multimeter in a work environment, though.
The ruggedness just isn't there.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Hi Jim

Yes, I also prefer the Fluke meters. I own a bench and handheld model.

They have a lifetime warranty and are a good investment new or used.

Many good models available on ebay from the big tech sellers at a good price.

judy


James wrote:

Fluke's DMMs do cost much more than generic ones. They guarantee accuracy
that the others can't touch. I've always been amused that Radio Shack and
many other inexpensive DMMs don't publish accuracy specifications.

If you want something for relative measurements (peaking, etc) and hobby
use, you have a wider field available. If you use it for a living and it
*has* to work - well, my Fluke 87 has served *me* wonderfully well. But
modern IC technology has certainly made a lot of capability available for
little cost elsewhere!

Jim WB9SYN/6 (Not affiliated with Fluke)