That said however, I would hardly call a one-off test of this sort any definitive test of a meter's robustness.
If 100 fluke 87s had been compared to 100 101s across a variety of controlled tests then you might be able to make a valid conclusion about their relative "robustness".
I assume you did not watch the entire video as this is what I stated in the conclusion. This testing was all funded by me, using my time to design the generator and run the tests. There is only so much I can do as one person. From your comment, I assume you are willing to take it to the next step. If not, that's fine too.
Sure, if the Fluke 87 had failed spectacularly at a relatively low voltage that might say something, but that's not what happened.
Again, as I stated in the video, it was never my intention to dial the generator back down to see where the meters fail. I only care which was the most robust. I will never know at what level the 87V I tested would fail at, nor did I care. I only know it is not as robust as the 101 I tested.
Early on I also stated I had no desire to put out enough energy to cause "spectacular" failures. There really was no point in this. I even did a short video showing a sustained arc using a second supply. If you plan to run your own tests, you are free of course to play with as much energy as you like. I welcome this and I am sure there are many of us who look forward to watching your videos.
Yeah I since watched the whole video. (spoke too soon).
Yeah, and I missed the other posts.
Was not my intent to call you out, again...
I agree $400 is too much for an 87V. It was around $350 when this thread started. And even that was a bit steep, but ok.
So we can conclude that 101 is one hardy meter. Is it because of the lack of features that it's as robust? Perhaps.
I tend to agree with your first comment, the 101 is one hardy meter.
How robust is 87V really? Is 13Kv just above its threshold of what it can take or is it just like all the other meters? We can't really say.
We know 87Vs have a reputation for robustness. And I or anyone else certainly can't ask for much more from you. You've provided great tests in all of this.
As I stated above, I agree, it would be good to know where the UNI-T 139 fails as well as the 87V. But I was really only looking for the most robust, not a metric of how they all lined up. We can't say that the AMPROBE I tested is just as robust as the 87V because we just don't know. It very well could be! The UNI-T may even hold up to higher levels!
Funny as it sounds, we really don't know. We do know that two 101's were tested on two generators at 12KV in all modes by two different people and it had no effect on both meters. We know that subjecting the 87V to the same tests as my 101 caused some damage to the meter.
Some parts are supposed to fail (like the fuses) and this is why meters will have reinforced blast shielding in some sections. But it would take way too many resources to really measure all these variables.
I was planning to run a real surge test on them but the 101 exceeded the limits of what I could do.
Fluke doesn't seem to have creepage issues for instance (like arcing at the selector), which many of the cheap meters exhibited at far lower voltages. And perhaps some features are difficult to implement without leaving the meter exposed to transient vulnerability in a given mode.
So what I take from this is. A well designed simple bare minimum feature meter will have a better chance of surviving than a feature packed bargain. Fluke designs some good meters. But just because a meter is expensive doesn't make it more robust. The added features make it potentially more vulnerable to damage when exposed to unforeseen circumstances.
You must not have watched my first Fluke. That thing arcs everywhere at the lowest settings I tested to! Given no constraints, anything could be built. As I stated in the video, it would have been interesting to run the 28II which is supposed to be the more robust meter on the generator and see if it holds up.
This doesn't change my mind on the 87V though. It anything it reinforces what I've been saying. A meter with a smaller set of well implemented core features is better than a feature packed meter with less well implemented essential features, because I think that more features increases the number of transient failure vectors.
Fluke 101 is just an extreme example of this. A meter with half of what I consider essential features, is practically indestructible.
I agree, if people want a robust meter, they should spend $50 on the 101 and not $400 on the 87V. Keep in mind again that the Klein Tools and Gardner bender both had even less features so they should have been even more robust but they were not. And meters like the AMPROBE with all of it's features should have failed much earlier than the Klein Tools, which it did not.
Because after all both of these meters come from the same company. And I would imagine they used the same philosophy and know how to design both of these meters. One just happens to be much more capable and expensive meter.
The 101 is not searchable on the USA site. It could be it was farmed out and the engineers who designed it just did a better job with the requirements they were given. I have no idea. AMPROBE is also built by the same company and it fell far short from the Fluke 101. In the end it really makes no difference. Every meter is going to be different. The goal was to see which was the most robust. Those who followed along watched a $50 Fluke 101 that had been beat down, over and over for several weeks, withstand what a $412 Fluke 87V could not. Any way we want to twist the story, that was the end result.