If this is true, it's interesting that they would talk about the 30K cycle test. We could run it to 50K full cycles and see if there is anything left.
Well, truth be told, either 30k or 50k is a very respectable lifetime for the switch. The issue is believing if they are a design feature or instead simply a "prepared" unit.
They may spit shine them every 5,000 cycles like Dave demonstrated. I don't think I ever life cycled a UNI-T product. The fact they even mention it for this particular meter seems like it would be a good choice.
If the whimmpy grill starter didn't damage it and it survived my smaller generator (6KVish), that would be a big improvement for UNI-T. The 138C can't come anywhere near that.
Are you referring to the UT139C? If so, in your tests it went up to 5kV. I wouldn't necessarily classify it as "can't come anywhere near that".
Yes. Just a typo. An old story... When I ran that first set of $50 meters, the AMPROBE AM510 was the runner up, if you want to call it that. The Fluke 101 surpassed it by a very large margin. Still to this day, I am not sure by how much as the 101 has yet to be damaged. I consider anything that can't compete with the AMPROBE AM510 not to be robust. So moving forward, when the I designed the new generator, I based it off what the AM510 could survive.
I know many people whined about how the 139C performed. I gave it a second chance on the new generator where it was again damaged at levels below what both the AM510 and Fluke 101 could easily survive.
You may see these numbers as being too harsh. It makes no difference to me if you felt the free Harbor Freight meter was a great meter. I could care less. My goal was never to sell meters but rather just benchmark them. The 139C did poorly, twice.
It has an ETL certification, as embossed at the back of the meter and as stated in the Chinese user manual.
(Intertek's Electrical Testing Labs)
After seeing Dave's 121GW get ETL cert and not even be able to do simple autorange, I have little confidence in their ability.
We mentioned this somewhere else; there is a possibility the test procedure does not exercise or cover this scenario. It is a somewhat CYA operation.
Yes we did and I pointed out key parts of the standards. But there was no conclusion. Me personally, I don't trust them to do their job. Seeing that Gossen get through with such obvious problems, I don't trust them as well. If the agencies want to dilute their value, I'm fine with it.
It's interesting that Fluke used to send them to several agencies, I suspect partly to avoid having a test house that replaced their senior staff with fresh outs who have no idea what a DMM is, just to make more profit. Surely this couldn't happen.
I wouldn't be surprised that Fluke, having created or shared a great deal of the practices and design rules that inspired the standards, would get these certifications done for pennies on the dollar.
With Dave's new meter having a UL cert, it will be interesting to see if it follows a similar path. So far, that lack of transparency and leaking a little bit here and there, it sure seems like this it the path it is heading down.
Just like you, I think that a decent equipment is mostly tied to the OEM than to the standard itself.
Yeah when that person had brought up HIOKI being self certified, it's a good case and point.
***
Was going to mention that I believe the AMPROBE AM-510 was certified by Intertek and made by UNI-T (see attached). Of course, the same companies produced and certified the AM-530. The 510 far surpassed the 530 in my testing. Just shows that if you make enough products, eventually you may stumble on a combination that is better than others. Design by random chance.