FLUKE 190_204 Scopemeter. Data on USB seem to be lost 1

[Skogsgurra]

Being the nerd I am, I couldn't resist buying the new FLUKE 200 MHz, all insulated four channel colour scope.

I like most of it. Battery life is good - a full day's work on an airport and still some battery left at the end of the day. But the plastic BNC connectors are delicate like they have been for decades. And internal memory is a mere 15 recordings 'deep'.

Not to worry, I thought. There's always the USB port. Just save data on USB sticks and use Flukeview 5 to get it back to the computer and into your report. good thinking - but no luck, I could not get the data back.

Yes, I could get the data back to internal memory in the scope. But not able to transfer that data from internal memory to computer. The 'native' data (data that were stored directly in internal memory) could be tranferred with no problems, but not data that had been stored to USB and then taken back to INT.

I prize my luck that I did save the more important measurements in INT and not USB. All I can do now with the USB data is to get them back as BMP. Coarse and not at all what my customer expected - and not me either.

Anyone knows what to do? Is there a magic trick so I can make USB data behave as well as the internally stored data?



Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

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

 

[Skogsgurra]

Some time has gone since I last told about the Series II 190-204 Scopemeter. I have been able to use it, but I do not trust the USB storage and now I have reasons not to trust the 15(!) internal storage places either. This is the story (as told to Fluke this morning):

"This week, I set out to find solutions to problems on board a ferry owned by Norwegian TIDE ferry company.

I packed my 190-204 and some other things and drove the 800+ km way across the beautiful Norwegian landscape - you ought to do that at least once in a liftime - and did my measurements yesterday. Drove back tonight and started my report this morning (yes, not much sleep - and bad weather, too).

I know how to make FV5 work the first time now, and I also have learned not to try anything else with any USB device as long as the 190-204 is connected. So, I started transferring data from 190-204 internal memory to PC. First data was OK. Next was blank. No data. As a matter of fact, the 190-204 refused to give me any data from 8 out of 14 memory places.

I made a condensed report of what happened and it is available here:

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

"

I am ready to throw this monster out the window now.




Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

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

 

[MagicSmoker]

Oy! I was outbid on one of these Fluke scopes on ebay and was at first disappointed over that; now I'm thinking I might have just dodged a bullet!

I desperately need a replacement for my trusty, but woefully superannuated Tektronix THS720P. I design power electronics and can't really afford high bandwidth differential probes and, of course, a grounded bench scope is verboten for this line of work. The limitations of my 1996-vintage THS720P are becoming more and more glaring every year. I can't bring myself to get a TPS2xxx series scope because it really doesn't look like it is much of an improvement over the THS7xx series, and the fact that they charge $600+ for software to do basic math functions on the waveforms is exceptionally annoying. Hello - the main reason people buy this type of scope is to look at VFD and SMPS waveforms!!!

Anyway, is the French scope I have seen mentioned here the AEMC OX7xxx series? The OX7204-III sure looks promising, but it is 50% more expensive than the similar model from Fluke. Of course, that still might make it a relative bargain if it does what it says while the Fluke does not. I really prefer to avoid the Chinese stuff like Owon or Rigol or whatever unless someone has just been totally blown away by the performance.

 

[Skogsgurra]

I bought an OX 7204 and a 100 MHz Rigol. The Rigol is surprisingly good for the money. No isolated channels, but very good otherwise. The display is a lot better than what I remember from a trade show one year ago.

The Rigol DS1102E has a very comprhensive triggering menu. One thing that I have been looking for in other scopes (and did not expect to find in this low-cost scope) is to be able to trig on edges and where I can define an upper level (say 10 V) and a lower level (1 V) and then set the trigger condition so I trig on all transitions faster than a certain value (I needed 100 nanoseconds). That is quite an achievment. I haven't found that on the OX7204 and certainly not on any of the Fluke scopes I have used over the time. FFT does work on the Rigol scope. But it doesn't exactly shine. Useful if you need to introduce learners to basic signal theory. But not much more.

The OX7204 has four isolated channels. And TWELVE BIT resolution at 200 MHz BW. Genuine one-shot 12 bit resolution.
The OX7204 also has four math channels. One math channel for every scope channel. Just as one expects. Fluke only has one math channel. So you cannot do much with the math functions, which, by the way are limited to four banger functions with an interlock (don't ask why) so you cannot square a channel. The OX7204 has all the math functions you will ever need. Transcendent functions, integration - everything you can possibly ask for.

There is so much more in the OX7204. IP address, SD storage, USB works flawlessly, of course. Can't say that about the Fluke.

The PC program is a run-time NI application and works well. The Fluke FV5 does have a rudimentary Windows look-and-feel but lacks many fetures while others are poorly implemented. No file identity, no date or clock saying when the data were taken. But you do get a time-stamp that tells you when you downloaded the data to the PC. Not very useful.

I am comparing the three scopes now, but it will take some time. Stand by!

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

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

 

[MagicSmoker]

Damn you, Gunnar. I had just about resigned myself to getting a TPS2024B for $4200 but now I can't get the OX7204-III out of my head. I know I would regret it if I didn't buy the AEMC scope, but I can't quite swallow its $7000 price tag at the moment.

More seriously, thanks for your honest commentary on the shortcomings you perceived with the Fluke scope.