Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 45 replies
  • Subscribers 2759 subscribers
  • Views 13976 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Fluke 233 Meter Review - Important Follow-up

Zad

I have had my Fluke 233 just over 4 months now, over which time it has  had pretty light use. Which is why what I am about to say is a bit of a  surprise.

In my review I wrote:

Batteries.  400  hours  estimated life is  excellent. That probably works out at 3 to 4  years  usage for me. But,  when they go, it does mean potentially 5  batteries  have to be replaced.

I have used it for maybe 5 hours use  at the outside, and not at all for the past month or so (sadly, my  engineering has mostly been on paper or PC recently). That doesn't sound  much, but it adds up to quite a few voltage and resistance  measurements.Anyway, I came to use my Fluke 233 today and this met me:

 

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd237/Zadpics/FlatBattery.jpg

 

Pretty much running on empty! Removing the remote head results in a BATT  warning and no measurements are possible. If I am going to be  installing a new set of 5 batteries every 4 months then it becomes a very expensive meter! I had thought that using high energy density AA  cells was a good idea (the cells it came with were brand new Duracells  with a very long use-by date), but maybe Fluke are covering up some  nasty quiescent current use. Swapping out the batteries allowed me to test  the off-load voltages, which were all around 0.95-0.96 Volts, so that rules out a rogue cell failure. My investigations with my trusty Fluke 77 (battery age 4 years) revealed the following:

Body power consumption, power ON = 3 to 6mA
Body power consumption, power OFF = 0.9 to 1.1mA
Display unit, power ON = 3 to 3.6mA
Display unit, power OFF = 1mA

 

Looking at http://www1.duracell.com/oem/Pdf/new/MX1500_US_UL.pdf the nominal capacity for <5mW drain is 1600 to 2300mAh (to 1 volt). 2300mAh at 1mA, is 95.8 days...

 

You  will note that an "on" life of 3mA is 766 hours, and 6mA is 383 hours,  which averages close to the specified taget of "around 400 hours".  Presuming you use your meter 24 hours a day, and don't actually switch  it off...

 

Given the recently found RF vulnerability in the Fluke 87 V, it does   make me wonder if Fluke are taking their eye off the ball. It surely cannot be right that a   meter eats a set of 5 cells in 4 months, especially given such light   usage. This is certainly not the sort of meter to leave in your tool case, because chances are that the batteries will be flat when you need it.

 

If any other Fluke 233 owners have experienced any similar failures, please let me know!

 

If any Fluke reps see this: Is there a known fault with the 233? Because this does look like a bit of a killer design issue.

 

Mike

  • Yep, I too put a separate on-off switch in each half of the split meter . Got  caught twice with dead meter . …seldom Caught  once. Fiasco233 …. I call the DVM 

  • in reply to daveleb55

    Hi David,

     

    When it was a new feature 8 years ago, I guess they thought it was best for the customer if they tried to make the workflow toward using it like a traditional multimeter, i.e. just turn the dial and go. That was a challenge to do with low energy, if there are no contacts to be exposed. There are techniques but probably 8-10 years ago (when they started designing it) the chipsets didn't wake up transmit and receive functions fast enough to keep energy consumption down and power-on response time high.

    I don't know about other users, but I too would rather prioritise battery life with a slight workflow change (such as a manual switch to power on the IR-wireless adaptor or remote display).

     

    Fast-forward to today, and with the introduction of technologies like Bluetooth LE, manufacturers have got a way to provide a much improved capability on their newer designs, allowing both a local display and a remote display (either a custom unit, or a mobile phone). As I understand, many of the wireless adaptors or remote displays now have a separate power button - Fluke's IR3000 has that, as does Keysight's wireless adaptors too.

  • in reply to e14 Contributor

    Dear Mr. Newell,

     

    You've got to be joking. "Put the paper tabs back in" or "take the batteries out???"

     

    You guys are supposed to be ENGINEERS. you can't figure out how to preserve battery life??

     

    Fluke has had a decades long reputation for superior products. I guess that's over now.

     

    Very disappointing.

  • I wish I had done more research before I forked out $300+ on the 233/A. I too only get 3-4 months of use even when using Energizer ultimate lithium batteries. It does become expensive quickly. Not real thrilled with this meter

  • imageimage

    Buongiorno a tutti!! ho letto i vostri commenti e ho avuto lo stesso identico problema..

    invece di togliere una batteria,ho inserito un interruttore e ho separato i contatti delle batterie..

    stessa cosa al modulo multimetro che presto farò

  • in reply to e14 Contributor

    Some confusion with serial numbers here.

    I have just purchased a 233 with serial number 2911XXXX. that is 8 digits.  On their supplement data sheet it refers to serial numbers 249999999 & 250000000, these are 9 digits!  Do you think this is just a printing error, or are all our test meters old!

  • in reply to e14 Contributor

    "If you have a meter that has a serial number below 138xxxxx  it will have the problem.  The fix

    came after that."

     

    I don't believe this to be accurate. image

     

    My F233's serial is 1394XXXX, and it certainly does suffer from a battery drain issue, hence why I have bothered to Google search and found my way here.

    Mike's original post describes the battery life of mine exactly.

    I have sent several emails to Fluke and they have not responded at all.

     

    From what I have read so far about why, I think it's amazing that this unit's mechanical dial -when switched to the "OFF" position, does not actually disengage it's power supply and switch the unit off.

  • in reply to e14 Contributor

    I have the updated version and I am actually using rechargeable eneloops.

    I have many devices damaged by leaking batteries and have more or less gotten rid of alkaline batteries.

  • Just had my meter returned and updated to version 2. The technician said that hardware updates may be involved. The current draw has decreased as follows:

     

    Base unit: 0.086mA
    Display unit: 0.11mA

     

    This is an order of magnitude less than the original so for a 3AH battery the lifetime is now over 3 years in theory. This is quite significant.

     

    Now the specification for the battery life can be believed as the operating battery life should not be significantly diminished if the battery is off.

     

    I think that the original meter (prior to version 2) made the specification for the battery life entirely incorrect: the batteries never lasted 400 hour over a reasonable battery life of 3 years, let alone 1 year. This is because it is generally understood that battery life is not significantly reduced when it is off, and there is nothing in the specification that says otherwise. It seems that Fluke are happy to fix this problem if it is within the warranty period otherwise. In Australia failure to fix the problem and the false specification for the original version easily violates the Competition and Consumer Act.

     

    http://www.fluke.com/fluke/auen/Digital-multimeter/Fluke-233.htm?PID=56054

     

    I am really quite thankful to Fluke for organising to get mine fixed. Before this I was considering getting rechargable batteries.

  • in reply to e14 Contributor

    Thank you for your response.   The check I mentioned should be performed with the display docked to the meter body.  Let me know if you have other questions or concerns.

     

    Perry

     

    Sent from my iPad