A 1000 miles trip with data lost on return. Fluke Scopemeter again. 2

[Skogsgurra]

More than 1000 miles, actually.

I am still struggling with my Fluke Scopemeter Series II 190-204 and I have told you about the very limited waveform memory, the problems with the USB stick, the outdated PC software, funny copy-and-paste effects when porting (patching, actually) SW from earlier 2-channel versions to four channels, ground leads coming loose from the probes and other problems. You have seen lots of that already.

But this thing, that happened this week, is so bad that I have a problem believing it myself. I did measurements on a ferry on the Norwegian west coast. Knowing that there are problems with the USB store, I was cautious and stored only the more important measurements and I stored them in internal memory. I had 14 recordings in the scope when I returned home to write a report.

When I got back home, I could only retrieve data from six out of the 14 recordings that I had stored. The bitmaps could all be retrieved - but not the data. I needed to transfer data to FV5 to do zooming, cursor measurements, FFT etcetera. But that is not possible if you do not get the waveform data.

I have been very careful with my comments before and I have had lots of patience with Fluke. But I feel that I have to tell the truth about Fluke Corporation and its oscilloscope division now. There's no competence left any more. As an example, there was a meeting in Stockholm in August 24 where top officers from Fluke, Netherlands were to inform representatives from Scandinavia about the Scopemeter. One guy asked how to compensate the probes. The Fluke officers told him that it is done in software. That little capacitor used to adjust frequency response was unknown to both of the Fluke officers and, since the manual says it is on the probe, they never found it on the BNC connector, where it is in reality.

OK. I have vented now. Look at

http://www.gke.org/pub/files/How reliable is the FLUKE Series II Scopemeter.pdf

There you can see that the problem isn't in the PC program (not this time). It is in the scope itself. When I retrieve a waveform on the scope, I can zoom it if data are available and not if only the bit map is available. That is why there are windows saying that zoom isn't available.

BTW. If you need to educate Fluke salespeople about the probe compensation, it is here:

http://gke.org/pub/files/Using the Scopemeter 190 math function 1.pdf

The compensation is described in the appendix.

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.

 

[electricpete]

One thing I will say is that these threads you have posted provide useful information for people who may own Flukes. Personally I would much rather that my concern be addressed with a simple harmless disclosure statement than that the threads be lost due to red-flag.

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[Skogsgurra]

Pete

I have trodden very carefully in this matter.

There is a long thread in Pat's Pub/The technical side of the pub where I started to discuss if it was at all suitable to reveal how bad the 190-204 scopemeter is. I was told by reputable members to be very careful and also that I should tell everything that I discovered in this instrument. That thread was started in May or June. You can go there and see for yourself.

I have had a rather intense e-mail conversation with the technical marketing manager and the marketing manager at Fluke Netherlands and also with people in the same position in Everett, WA.

I have explained to them how critical the situation is and some of these people understand it very well while some (the salespeople) do not want to understand. During this conversation, that has been going on for around four months, I have noticed that there is a complete lack of understanding when it comes to technical issues and that all programmers seem to have left the company. The software has been patched by consultants to work with four channels and there are some surprising side effects that reveal that QA/QC doesn't exist at all.

I have been invited to visit Fluke, Netherlands - but on my own expense - and I didn't accept that.

I have written about the last experience to five fluke officers (the ones I communicate with since May/July) and I haven't got any reaction from them.

In July or August, I told them that I would publish my findings in my file archive and I had no reaction from Fluke Corporation. So, I started telling about my experience with the 190-204. I am also working on a much more detailed report about what is wrong with this instrument and I have an open invitation to meet the guys in Holland and discuss these matters. In all, I think that I have put a few hundred hours on this. That includes detailed check of all functions and also the time lost when the instrument doesn't work as intended.

The problem, as I see it, is that Fluke has new owners and that the new owners have reduced personnel to such an extent that all detailed knowledge and competence has moved from the company. Some people at Fluke know that, but those who decide do not want to understand, or cannot understand. That is why I, after lots af consideration, do this.

I hope that the top brass will understand and that Fluke once again will become a company that you can buy equipment from without risking your blood pressure and your reputation.

Also, I think that my reports can be of value to those that are looking for portable oscilloscopes. See it as product reviews.

If you think this is, as you say, "badmouthing", I beg you to reconsider.

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.

 

[electricpete]

Why do you bring that Arcus up? It isn't even close in bandwidth or application. Please tell me your reason.

I'd like to explore that further.

First bandwidth:
Fluke Scopemeter 190-204 is advertised as 200MHz bandwidth, 2.5 GSamples/sec sample rate.
Acrus is advertised as 30 k-samples per second.
At first glance it sounds like you are saying these two products don’t deserve to be compared because yours has so much lower of a bandwidth.
But that’s without looking at thread248-298340 where it was clearly stated by you “But when you want to measure current waveforms with 10 MHz components, a 200 microsecond resolution (fastest in RECORDER mode) is pathetic”
200 microsecond as you know is 5 khz sample rate.
Trying to claim these products are not overlapping on basis of sample rate / bandwidth now seems to me a very gray area.

Now what about application.
You have posted waveforms from vfd output using both instruments (I gather neither capable of capturing very fast rise-times). This seems like an overlap in application to me.

Maybe I am missing something. Feel free to educate me.

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[Skogsgurra]

Pete

We were typing at the same moment.

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.

 

[electricpete]

I was composing yours while mine posted.

Let me make it clear again, I am not suggesting for you to stop providing information on this topic. I am just suggesting for you to include a small disclosure statement in this thread and any future thread on this topic.

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[electricpete]

I withdraw the comment about "badmouthing". It was not intended as a characterization of your tone so much as a clarification of the scope of your criticism (not just one Fluke instrument but wider concerns with the company). My point was that if your criticism extends beyond the Fluke 190-204, then the any discussion of whether your Arcus overlaps/competes should include comparison against the entire Fluke line.

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[electricpete]

I know my suggestion might be viewed as a criticism. But if I try to put myself into your shoes (to the extent I understand your shoes), that's the way I would do it. And that is the way that many other people who dabble in selling things do it on this forum and others.

At this point, I will sign off of this topic unless further discussion is brought related to the points I raised.


=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[Skogsgurra]

The word "dabble" is very well chosen and describes quite well my shoes. I still cannot see how Arcus or GKE in any way could benefit from the decline of giant Fluke corporation.

On the contrary, we all lose from that negative development and I am trying to make Fluke understand that they need to do something if they want to stay in business. We have seen bean counters destroy companies before, recent HP comes to mind, and if I can stop that in this case, I would be happy.

You may find that strange. But those who know me better understand.

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.

 

[Skogsgurra]

I had a look at the tread where this was first discussed. There, I have antecipated exactly the situation with the ferry. A snippet:

"Skogsgurra (Electrical)
2 Jul 11 3:15
MJ

The product can be used. And it is sound in many respects. I also need it. But I cannot trust it. It drives blood pressure. I need to take care so I do not come back home from foreign travels without results. Such a situation would cost more than the instrument. A few times more.

My first problem with this device was when I found out it has insufficient data storage. Its predecessor had ridiculously few storage places, only 15 waveforms could be stored. This new device, that was released end of 2010, still doesn't have more than 15 places. Nowhere in the ads or the specs available before you buy can this be seen. Memory shortage? Today? That is something you wouldn't even care to think about.

Memory is not expensive today. Why disappoint customers like that? Probably because the patch needed to increase number of places was too difficult or just didn't work and management either had no idea or didn't think it was a problem.

It may sound funny, but I find the instrument useful. My USD 7000 that I paid were available and I see no point in getting them back. So, returning it isn't anything I have contemplated. If they could start the SW over from scratch and produce a system that works well and that I can trust, then I would love to have this device changed.

So, I guess that my primary reaction was surprise and disappointment. My second reaction was, I think, another "surprise wave": How can this well-known company fail like this?

The reason I started this thread was because I thought it is an interesting case and also that I needed your opinion. I have received several interesting views already. And I think there will be more."


It is almost prophetical. I came 'back home from foreign travels without results' exactly as I had feared.




Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.

 

[sibeen]

I'll place my two cents on the table.

Unfortunately, in my opinion,it's not only Fluke who've gone down this path. I used to have a venerable Tek THS 720P. Bloody brilliant bit of kit. Did what I needed, and with the appropriate probes was also quite safe. Not the greatest software interface with the old wavestar, but it got reports done. My biggest complaint with it was it had an absolute crap role mode and magnification with a simple x10 mode.

The memory may be getting a little hazy but I do believe that I bought a couple of these back in 1997, or thereabouts. Were the hell have we gone since then?

Nowdays I've got a Fluke 435 that I use for power monitoring, but it's absolutely crap as a scope, admittedly not that it's made for it. For looking at waveshapes and doing a decent roll mode I lug (yes it's heavy) around a yokogawa DL 708.

Why is it that since the mid 90s that there hasn't been any great innovation applied to the field? Tek have completey dropped the ball with no real replacement for the THS series; Fluke were never great for handhelds but have gotten even worse. I always hated the screen resolution of the flukes scopes.

I suspect that the link VE1BLL posted will be the future, and that in a few years time we'll be posting links to the new FFT download. I doubt we'll ever see the great bits of kit from HP, Yokogawa, Tek or Fluke; at least in our 'power electronics' field.

 

[MikeHalloran]

Current Fluke management seems bent on following DuMont's destiny.

The only way to change that is to buy a majority position and fire the lot of them.

Gunnar, unless you have a billionaire friend, you are tilting at windmills.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[electricpete]

But those who know me better understand.

You respond as if you want to convince me of your character and your legitimate motivations. That is really unrelated to my original comments. The question that is raised is not one of you, your character, your actual motivations and convincing me. It is a question of the situation and the facts (you advertise a product which can very easily be interpretted as competing to the one you criticize) and what might be the appearance of impropriety to an impartial observer who doesn’t even know you. Believe it or not, my comment was not a criticism of you, it was a suggestion based on what I perceive to be standard ethics and good practices which should place you in a stronger and more defensible position for discussions of this topic in any venue. It is also a standard that any forum moderator on the planet would endorse/enforce.

Maybe you can mull this over between now and your next thread on this subject (if there is a next thread). If there appears no disclosure statement in that next thread, there will be more discussion.

Thanks for your patience.

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[waross]

Pete, I think that you are the one that is out of line. Take a break, walk around the block, and get some perspective. There is an issue here. A serious issue with the suitability of a piece of equipment from a company which had an excellent name for quality equipment.
Your attack of an example that Gunnar used serves more to confuse the issue than any positive purpose. It brings to mind Bill Clinton's arguing about the definition of sexual intercourse. When you don't wish to confront the main issue, cause confusion by attacking minor points.
I don't believe that any of your comments on the propriety of some of Gunnar's examples is germane to the issue of the POS that Fluke has produced.
{end of Rant}

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[electricpete]

Pete, I think that you are the one that is out of line.

I understand that you think what Gunnar has license to say whatever he wants about Fluke without disclosing his potential commerical conflict of interest. I unerstand you think it is "out of line" to suggest that in the future the conflict of interest be disclosed in accordance with standard practice. I am not sure you could find many impartial observers to agree with that.

I am offended that you imply I am trying to cause confusion.



=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[electricpete]

Before someone jumps on me, let me clarify:
I understand that you think what Gunnar has license to say whatever he wants about Fluke without disclosing his potential commerical conflict of interest
should have been
I understand that you think what Gunnar has license to present facts and opinions about Fluke without disclosing his potential commerical conflict of interest

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[electricpete]

Also, I would recommend to drop critique of my suggestion from this thread and leave it to Gunnar to mull over my suggestion between now and the next thread (not next post... next thread).

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[waross]

#1 For once in your life hit "Preview Post" before "Submit Post".
#2 Reread some of the posts. Gunnar has addressed his perceived "Conflict of interest" to the satisfaction of all of us and (if I remember correctly) even to your satisfaction at one time.
Now clicking on "Preview Post".
Now clicking on "Submit Post".
To quote Staples "THAT WAS EASY".

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[ScottyUK]

sibeen,

The TPS series was the replacement (sort of) for the THS series. It was bigger, was a 'proper' scope, and for its day was a bloody good scope. It hasn't been updated at all in the last ten (?) years - even daft stuff like providing a USB or ethernet port instead of RS-232 - and its memory is poor by modern standards. It was a pretty unique range at the time it was released, and I do wonder if it might be the last-of-line.

As things stand right now I'd rather buy a decent mains-powered scope, add a few isolation amplifiers, and run an extension cable or carry a little generator. Last time I looked Agilent's scopes were ahead of Tek's equivalent product in performance and capability for a given price, but I wasn't quite as comfortable with the user interface. Perhaps just a case of getting familiar with it?


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[VEBill]

Gunnar has already fully disclosed his business interests with every single post. It's right there, on the line following his name (signature). It only needs one mouse click to land on his business webpage, where anyone can review his business areas. This is infinitely more disclosure of business interests than most.

So, even *if* the existance of ARCUS demands "disclosure" (a very dubious argument, given the totality of the circumstances), then the explicit business link already fulfills that purported obligation perfectly. There are no grounds for any complaint given the explicit (bolded and underlined) link that anyone with a functioning mouse finger can follow.

It gets better:

If Gunnar had explicitly highlighted the existence of ARCUS and represented it - or even implied it - as being a "competing" product to Fluke's apparently-frustrating gadget, then there might have been complaints about Gunnar "advertising" his product in connection with Fluke's failures. In this event, those complaints would actually have been far more legitimate than this unfounded complaint about "disclosure".

.:

It's clear that there isn't any problem with Gunnar's existing explicit disclosure.

And it's clear that the proposed solution is actually far worse than even the inaccurately perception of the non-existent 'problem'.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

I look at it this way... even if the person has a reason to knock down the other company through bad press, do they have even the most remote of hopes in doing so?

This is like one guy saying Disney's rides are dangerous because of the accidents that have happened in the past. That one guy's thoughts simply aren't going to amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things when it comes to Disney.

Let's get back to real life, shall we?



Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com