Equipement list for a professional level lab - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:43:31 pm
content: Hi to all,For a long time that I've been following the yt channel, but only now I've decided to register to this community. Like many of you I'm an Electronic Engineer, but, of course with much to learn.I'm trying to make a list of test and measurement equipment, to be used in a professional level lab. It will be used for R&D in different areas, from simple analog circuits, to microcontrollers and even RF circuitry. This is not an exhaustive list, it is just the most fundamental equipment.So, I went to a well know electronic suppliers website, and I've selected the following:- GW INSTEK GSP-730 SPECTRUM ANALYZER, 150KHZ TO 3GHZ- KEITHLEY 2230-30-1 PSU, 3CH, 30V, 5A, PROGRAMMABLE, USB- KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES DSOX3024T OSCILLOSCOPE, 4-CH, 200MHZ, 5GSPS- B&K PRECISION BK4064 SGNL GENERATOR, 2CH, ARB/FUNC, 120MHZ- KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES 34460A MULTIMETER, BENCH, 6.5 DIGIT, TRUE VOLT- FLUKE FLUKE-289/EUR MULTIMETER, DIGITAL, HAND HELDThe idea is to have a good digital oscilloscope (mixed signal ... or not, not really important). A good multimeter (bench and hand held), a good and precise power supply, a spectrum analyzer ... and, still not on the list, a good soldering station (hot air, iron and desoldering gun), preferable from Hakko or JVC.My list is probably far from "good", but I would ask for your opinion and expertize on the subject ?Many thanks to all

author: Pasky
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:49:31 pm
content: I'm far from an expert but I'd imagine you'd want a good LCR meter.Perhaps a stand alone logic analyzer as well.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:56:03 pm
content: Yes that might be a good idea. Some multimeters also have LCR capability ... but most likely not as good as standalone equipment. As for logic analyzer ... well, personally I think that nowadays we don't use parallel bus anymore, its more likely to use I2C or SPI, or CAN ... or some other serial bus, and for that a 4ch oscilloscope can do the trick, and some even have a bus decoding option.But, that is the kind of help I would like to hear from you guys, is it worth to go for such a standalone equipment?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:56:55 pm
content: My suggestion is to buy the 34410A if you can, unless you prefer fancy stuff compared to performance. Also, making the lab from the same brand can have nice side effects, like you can make complicated test setups with software support, which almost impossible with more brands. Like with a signal generator + DMM you can setup a bode plot tool (amplitude at least).And if I would have a big budget, I would call over the local sales person of that company with the volatile name.

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:59:42 pm
content: The B&K PRECISION BK4064 SGNL GENERATOR, 2CH, ARB/FUNC, 120MHZ looks like a rebadged Siglent one, it would probably be much cheaper to buy the Siglent one directly:Siglent SDG5122 which is around half the price.Or else get a more expensive Keysight one with better jitter and much more memory.

author: LaurentR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:07:36 pm
content: Quote from: Lagaffe on January 26, 2015, 09:43:31 pmOn the 34460A, do yourself a favor and get a 34461A. The 34460A is a mildly crippled version of the 34461A. Lots of small things not available. The biggies are Trend plotting (a major feature of this new product if you ask me) and the 10A range. I am surprised they even sell the 34460A given the very small dscount. I am pretty sure the sales volume must be << than the 34461A.Carefully review the feature differences on page 7 of Keysight's3446xA spec sheet.As for the Fluke 289, do you have a need for it? It's big, slow to start and most of its features (especially trending/logging and software) are better on the 34461A anyway. Unless you need logging _and_ portability, I would skip the 289 and get a 87V or equivalent which is a non-nonsense, simple, pleasant-to-use jack-of-all-trades.

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:08:08 pm
content: One difference between a professional and an amateur is that a professional invests in equipment that will have a payback, while an amateur spends on equipment that he wants to have. Because an amateur doesn't need to make a profit on his gear, a well-funded amateur in some instances might have a better equipped lab than a frugal and profitable professional.So the real answer depends on what sort of business the professional lab is doing. Repair? Research? Design? Prototyping? Is it working mostly in digital or analog circuitry? Audio? RF?What is bringing in the money? Invest in that.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:10:33 pm
content: I'd look at Lecroy's Wavesurfer 3000 instead of the Keysight DSOX3024T. The Wavesurfer has way more memory!

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:12:58 pm
content: That is a nice start for a beginner's lab!Are you sure you have the experience and knowledge to make use of such an investment?

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:24:55 pm
content: It is for a professional grade lab (not amateur), I was given the oportunity to build a list of really nice equipment ... of course, when the person in charge will take a look at the final value, he might change his mind.Research, design, prototyping, everthing from scrach till a final product. RF will be used, but I guess for some ASK 433.92MHz remote control ... nothing on the GHz side of spectrum.This list of equiment, I've never used anything so fancy ... that is why I have so many doubts.Taking all of your suggestions:Lecroy Wavesurfer 3000 - Instead of Keysight DSOX3024TKEYSIGHT 34461A MULTIMETER - Instead of 34460AFluke 87V - Instead of 289 (the 87V I'm already familiar with ... the 289 not so much, but it looks good "on paper")Siglent SDG5122 signal generator - instead of B&K PRECISION BK4064

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:28:26 pm
content: Quote from: Lightages on January 26, 2015, 10:12:58 pmNot beginner's ... but I'm also pretty sure that we (me and everybody involved in this project) have much to learn to be able to take full advantage of all the capabilities of this equiment

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:36:51 pm
content: And how about getting a Rigol spectrum analyser instead of the GW Instek? Having a trackgenerator also helps. And I'm missing an RF generator. If you are going to work on RF are likely no need an RF generator to tune antenna's and need other goodies like a directional coupler, terminators, 'tees', SMA RF leads, SMA-BNC 'converters', SMA-N, etc.Talking about leads: get a bunch of banana and BNC leads as well.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:38:34 pm
content: While you are looking at Siglent stuff you might consider the SDM3055 bench MM.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sdm3055-opinions/While it is quite a new unit, it's price might be attractive should you be squeezed in your final budget.

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:50:31 pm
content: It's difficult to give advice about what equipment to recommend to make a measurement without knowing clearing what the measurement is to be made, and how accurately it needs to be made.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:53:27 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 26, 2015, 10:36:51 pmMaybe a Rigol DSA815-TG ? ... ah yes, all those "little" goodies are also very important, and while we may not take it in to consideration at first, it sure adds to the final bill

author: engiadina
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:03:32 pm
content: I would start with some basic stuff. A Fluke 78 is good, don't spend the money for the desktop meter. Buy a decent scope with more bandwith you think you will ever need. A versatile PSU is necessary, Keysight E3631A is a good choice, has triple output in quite usable ranges.START WORKINGKeep away from fancy stuff like SigGen, Spectrum Analyzer etc at the beginning. Learn what you need. Look for the projects coming in and define your needs afterwards.Take the SigGen. Which maximum frequency do you need? Modulation? Arb? Dual channel? You simply don't know for now. You're either spending money for something you do not need or buying an instrument which does not fulfil your needs. Both is wasted money.Get a better idea of your requirements before opening the pouch wide. Do you really NEED 6 1/2 digits?Actually the scope will eat most of the budget. Put your money in there first. Have sufficient bandwith, reliable decode options for busses and high quality probes.A scope will be ALWAYS needed. So buy the best one you can afford for now - the rest will come later.engiadina

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:15:50 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on January 26, 2015, 10:50:31 pmAgreed.However, I can offer some thoughts and advice to the OP.The GW spectrum analyser is a bit of a toy so my advice would be to only buy it if you are going to do very basic spectrum analysis and can accept high levels of measurement uncertainty and the inability to resolve narrowband signals.The Keithley PSU looks like it is meant to be used in an ATE environment. I don't think many people would like the user interface if used manually and I'd question how much fan noise it spits out.I guess you can make an exception with the Siglent stuff because it is very low cost even when new but I wouldn't be looking to spend big money on a new bench DMM from Agilent/KS or a £3k scope if I was just starting out doing R&D work.Better to spend less on some older (but decent) gear until a real measurement requirement pops up. Then you can flash the cash on something focussed to that need or rent something or even get it on trial.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:20:14 pm
content: Quote from: engiadina on January 26, 2015, 11:03:32 pmI do agree with you, but at the moment I'll need to aim a little higher than what might be the most immediate needs ... because in the end, I know I'll get a lot less than what I asked forBTW, the PSU is a good choice, thanks

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:26:40 pm
content: Much good advice from others. The KEITHLEY 2230-30-1 is very likely a rebadged unit, but if this specs out for your need the OEM maybe a cheaper bet. Details here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-keithley-psu-2230-30-1/

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:30:50 pm
content: Budget for the BenchVue license for the DMM. $200 IIRC. The freeware version will only log for one hour. You might consider sticking with Agilent for the scope if "unified" testing is in your future. For professional use the BenchVue software is cheaper than paying someone to wrestle with automated Excel spreadsheets - at least for basic data collection. For complex test, you'll be writing code anyway.Also, I'd consider two 34461As instead of one. Pretty frequently you'll want two measurements at the same time.I'm not sure what you need the SA for, but $10k is the entry point for an SA for most commercial work unless you're doing VHF/UHF. That includes the Rigol as the 7+Ghz version with the TG costs real money.My DMMs really are the workhorses for me. I would really feel lost without them. The scope is something you just have to have on site, but a spectrum analyzer is something you should consider renting as you need it.Don't forget to budget for test leads, RF attenuators, lead racks, etc. Nothing is less efficient than having lab full of gear and nothing to interconnect it - or worse, bastardizing the measurements by having to daisy chain the wrong stuff together. The good coax interconnects cost serious dough, so toss in several hundred to a grand to make sure you've got what you need.Not being sure what you're working on, I'm going to guess on power supplies, but I'd have at least one, solid linear supply(quiet) and a couple cheaper switching supplies as auxiliaries.If you're going to have to probe around on broken or mystery equipment, have at least one sacrificial handheld for that purpose.Other things that were like gold to me now and the past:- having the full E96 component series available on site- stereo microscope with variable zoom- electronic load- full soldering and rework capability- low tech environmental chamber- a room with the power designed around the test lab. Make your facilities people give you dedicated breakers. Force them to pound in extra ground rods at the distribution panel and actually measure the grounding quality.- Good power distribution in the testing area to minimize rats nests of cabling.I'd strongly consider a scope >=1Ghz even if you have to pass on the good probes initially. 200Mhz is pretty wimpy these days. And I say that having bought a 200Mhz scope. That gets me into low end uCs and not much more.And get the serial decoders built into the scope. Better to have a 4ch scope with the decoders than a MSO without.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:38:47 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on January 26, 2015, 11:30:50 pmSome troubleshouting and to help with EMI/RFI certification

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:02:07 am
content: Quote from: Lagaffe on January 26, 2015, 11:38:47 pmNo experience with certification unfortunately, but talk to testequity et al about rental costs. They ship overnight, so there's not a lot of lag time to get one.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:26:30 am
content: Great tips LabSpokane !! I wasn't thinking about that, but a good quality mains earth is essential, as well as an isolation transformer (for those times that you connect something to the power grid, and Murphy is trying to catch you).The equipment will be used mainly for robotics and automation, but this includes almost everything you have in electronics. Starting from batteries, you have analog and power electronics, going to some gyros and accelerometers and you have digital and signal processing, making something remote controlled and you have RF ... sensors and actuators and there will be some network (CAN, most likely) ... and so it goes. Even for me it is difficult to make a very specific topicA scope with a large bw is good, but I guess I'll go for a scope with good sampling rate and memory depth ... at least for now. But with a bw >= 200Mhz

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:32:08 am
content: For EMI/RFI certification (CE and/or FCC compliance) a basic spectrum analyser will do just fine. When working on radio communication a low noise floor and narrow receive bandwidth could be a plus.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:36:50 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on January 26, 2015, 09:56:55 pmThe 34461A is very reasonably priced, and just has so many user friendly features like onscreen data logging. I wouldn't save few bucks and go for the obsolete 34410A. This doesn't sound like a buck saving exercise.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:38:53 am
content: Quote from: LaurentR on January 26, 2015, 10:07:36 pmI'd second that. If you have the 34461A then no real need for the 289, it's just clunky to use as an everyday use meter in the lab. Two Agilent U1272A's would be much nicer.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 02:46:35 am
content: Quote from: Lagaffe on January 27, 2015, 12:26:30 amWell, I'm glad YOU remembered the isolation xformer because I forgot!And I know folks love the VFD and the non-OS reliability of the 34401 and 34410, but I'm with Dave on going with the 34461 DMM. If you look at Agilent's firmware update history, they have a track record of adding nice features to their gear, so to me the OS is a positive.And I'm not sure what size robotics you're working on, but I always have found it handy to have DIN rail mounted power supplies with an assortment of DIN circuit breakers to use as switches. This is where eBay can be a gold mine for used supplies. Automation Direct also sells some nice ones new that have a decent range of adjustability and regulate well.The image is what I have on my panel for now. Got them used for half off on eBay. In my past life, we had a slew of these things on a panel so that we could function test everything without having to "over purchase" adjustable lab power supplies.Batteries and battery chargers were another thing we didn't have nearly enough. Some Phoenix supplies have a UPS function, so they can function as a dual battery charger / supply.Good luck! The piggy bank doesn't open up like this often!

author: Hugoneus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:47:57 am
content: What about a synthesizer? Wouldn't you need one if you are working on 400MHz remote control project?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 06:24:31 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on January 26, 2015, 11:30:50 pmWhat do you mean with "unified testing"?The DSO3kT is certainly a nice scope but it's essentially a DSOX3k (a roughly 5 yr old design) plus touch screen, and quite frankly 4M sample memory is a bit of an embarrassment for a scope in this price class which came out in late 2014. Aside from basic things like a network port (which is still an quite expensive option on the DSOX3kT while it's pretty much standard fit anywhere else).Generally there's little reason to stick with a single vendor, and it's usually better to just get the best suited device from whoever produces it.QuoteFully agree. 200MHz doesn't get one very far. For a general purpose scope I'd look at least at a 500/600MHz scope.QuoteTrue.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:37:53 am
content: By "unified", I just meant multiple instruments read simultaneously as part of a single testing procedure. BenchVue certainly is a crutch, but it's a cost-effective crutch versus the man hours it takes going DIY. I'm looking at this from the point of having a diverse group of users needing to do a wide variety of tasks with the least fuss. And for that, I think there can be value in drinking the Kool aid.As for the scope, I'm running a 2k series, and yes, there's things left to be desired. However, I will say that the segmented memory is pretty painless to use for most mundane tasks. That doesn't solve the issue of needing to read a long serial stream. And certainly Agilent's decisions on memory depth and triggering options can be puzzling to say the least. I will say that I'm pleased to *not* have had do to deal with some of the crazy crap that I read about with other vendors on here. And I do like the support. I've had an Agilent employee offer tech support on his day off from this forum.My experience is this is very limited compared to yours, Dave's and others in this so I'll cut myself off at this point. I'm just sympathetic to the OP because I've been in a similar spot as an engineer trying to build up the right equipment and the knowledge to use it properly. I'm still learning...

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 11:21:25 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 27, 2015, 12:36:50 amI think the 34461A is inferior to the 34410A. Even Agilent said that the 34461 is the replacement for the 34401, not the 10. The basic accuracy is worse, the diode test is 5V to mess with your digital circuits, it measures 10 times slower (reading/sec), doesnt measure capacitor, doesnt measure above 100M Ohm. Lot of these functions I actually use.I think the display is horrible, but that is just a personal preference. I usually do statistics in excel, when I see what the calculation is.We have both at work, I prefer the 34410A. I think it is even more expensive.Well, at least when the 3458A is not available.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 03:22:10 pm
content: From the original list of equipment, for a 'professional' lab, I'd not go for any Instek, Rigol etc equipment. These are not professional tools.Power supplies, I'd be looking at the TTi CPX400DP. I'd consider a second bench DMM over the 289 or 87V unless you need the portability.I'd imagine if you're doing RF work, most of your money would go into the spectrum analyser but find out your needs for this first before buying something cheap.Quote from: NANDBlog on January 27, 2015, 11:21:25 amI agree. The 34410A is a much better spec DMM. Of course if you need the additional features over measurement performance then you'd go for the 34461A.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 03:40:33 pm
content: Quote from: Hugoneus on January 27, 2015, 05:47:57 amWell, I'm not sure if I can take full advantage of a synthesizer ... at the moment, I can only foresee some ASK OOK modulation, but it sure would be nice to have a DSO that could decode streams of modulated information

author: nfmax
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 04:05:58 pm
content: Back in 1999 I was in a similar situation, tooling up an electronics lab in a startup, in the fibre-optic sensors business. In retrospect, one of the single most useful pieces of equipment was an HP 34970A datalogger. We used them to measure & record voltages, currents and especially temperatures over extended duration tests. They also do frequency, resistance, etc. So useful we now have dozens of them (also the very similar 34972A)

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 04:06:45 pm
content: Quote from: SteveyG on January 27, 2015, 03:22:10 pmI believe it will be better to have more than one hand held DMM, like the 87V or U1272A ... because those are most used tools in any lab. A bench multimeter is handy for those data logging measurements ... instead of exporting data to some excel spreadsheet and having to work from there.Can't thank you guys enough for all the help !

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 04:46:56 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on January 27, 2015, 10:37:53 amCouldn't agree more !Taking everything in consideration, and apart from general (but indispensable) equipment like:- LCR meter- All kind of BNC's, T connectors, cables, test probes ...- Electronic test load- Well designed power distribution bench, with circuit breakers and DIN power supplies- Isolation transformer- Electronic microscopeScope: LeCroy WAVESURFER 3054 (MDO3052 would be nice ... but the price ...)Function Generator: B&K PRECISION BK4064Portable DMM: Fluke 87V or Agilent U1272A (more than one)Bench MM: Keysight 34461A (and or a cheap version Siglent SDM3055)Bench Power Supply: Keysight E3631A ... and for a higher power output a: TTi CPX400DPRework Station: Hakko 702BSpectrum Analyzer, Data Logging ... not for now

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:13:29 pm
content: Quote from: Lagaffe on January 27, 2015, 04:46:56 pmIt seems LeCroy has recently expanded the capabilities of the WaveSurfer 3000:http://teledynelecroy.com/pressreleases/document.aspx?news_id=1873&capid=107&mid=554CAN/LIN decoding is now available ($900). In addition, the integrated Function Generator in the scope (which can be enabled via an optional license) now supports Arbitrary Waveform Generation, which is a free upgrade for those that already have the FG option. And they added a DVM which is free for all WS3000 scopes.

author: Hugoneus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:19:36 pm
content: Don't discount the Rigol power supplies, they have been working well for me.Although I do have to echo the fact that having all your instruments from one manufacture can have a huge benefit in automation and unified test setups.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:45:03 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on January 27, 2015, 10:37:53 amI see. But even single manufacturer solutions are by no means a guarantee that everything works well together. Bugs may not get fixed or the new version no longer supports a certain piece of kit. BTST quite a few times (in a former life I used to design and built RF ATEs).This aside, I didn't get the impression that the OP wants to built an automated test setup, and for the purpose of a practical lab I can't see any advantage of going single vendor.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:50:05 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on January 27, 2015, 05:45:03 pmThat is true. No ATE for the moment, only a razonable good R&D lab.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 06:00:46 pm
content: W,I definitely biased the discussion based on my past experiences and certainly based on my *in*experience then and now. By happenstance I ended up having to test 3rd party equipment that we integrated on a sort of "black box" basis. The ease of data logging suddenly became important to me even though I had no notion of doing so when I purchased the equipment.I do appreciate your position on the best tool for a fair price. My priorities in five years will likely be quite different than today. Today, I look for things that are "low friction" even though they may not be the best technically or the most cost effective. So goes inexperience...

author: devanno
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 06:08:23 pm
content: I'm not a EE or even close... but I'll offer some thoughts... you've been getting some great feedback from others here.Ok, so you have added an isolation transformer... have you considered line power stabilizers to be sure that your mains power is stable (in some areas, not necessary... in others, almost a must, IMO).?You are looking at devices that can connect to a computer for logging, etc... but have not included a computer, network switches or usb (powered) hubs in your list of gear. You may want one or more computer systems depending on how many DUTs you'll have working at once, and how many techs.Digital O'scopes are great and will likely do what you need... but might it be worth investing in a used calibrated analog 'scope as well?Some comments were to just use hand-held DMMs and forget the bench one. You may need to do 4-wire setups and I've only seen these done from a bench DMM. (I haven't seen the whole spectrum of products, so I likely have missed something here.) "Permanent' connections to computers for logging from bench DMMs may also be of some value.As to test cables, don't go cheap! (But you already knew that!) In setting up my very amateur bench, I ended up spending way over $1000 on good test leads, and things like o-scope probes for a used 'scope that came without probes, etc. Do you need to include powered differential probes for your 'scope, or will passive probes be sufficient? Diff probes get rather, um... pricey.Since you're shooting for the moon, would you also want a good time-base reference standard? Frequency counter?To ensure that you have continued trust in your gear, you may want to include a budget line item (forward looking) for calibration services.Just some thoughts off the top of my head... best wishes!

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 06:30:07 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on January 27, 2015, 06:00:46 pmThe thing is that basic datalogging i.e. from a DMM is pretty straight forward these days. That isn't necessarily true for more complex demands, though.When I buy test gear I make sure that I can get the data I need out of the device in a standard format (i.e. csv, xls, whatever), which means no matter who made the instrument I can easily process the data in any way I want without being limited to some manufacturer tools that either are free/cheap and often buggy or very expensive and still may not work with all your instruments after the next update.Quote from: devanno on January 27, 2015, 06:08:23 pmNot really, unless the OP wants to curate a T&M museum an analog boat anchor is certainly the last thing we would want in a lab for professional use. Aside from the fact that they are no longer manufactured for some time now and even the last analog scopes are now long out of support.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 06:55:36 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on January 27, 2015, 05:45:03 pmIn addition to that IMHO it is better to buy dedicated equipment for test setups. Equipment is usually tied up for a longer period of time.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 07:06:57 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 27, 2015, 06:55:36 pmHow true.

author: dadler
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 09:10:02 pm
content: Quote from: LaurentR on January 26, 2015, 10:07:36 pmI agree on the 289. I have the 287 which is essentially the same meter, and I did not realize until I received it that the data logging cannot be set faster than 1 sample/sec. It's bulky and is slow to boot up. I do like the screen though, which is its saving grace. But I wish I had just gone with the 87V.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 09:53:40 pm
content: Quote from: Lagaffe on January 27, 2015, 03:40:33 pmThat's a big ask for your average DSO.Am I alone in thinking that buying $10k of gear at this stage is a mistake bearing in mind the OP's apparently limited requirement? At the moment I am seeing a number of expensive solutions looking for a problem.For ASK OOK, it's common to use third party pre-certified modules, which rather limits the need for expensive RF test equipment.Of course, if it's a startup with a bunch of seed funding, go ahead and spend it before the investors change their minds.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:01:52 pm
content: Quote from: devanno on January 27, 2015, 06:08:23 pmThe ideia is to use regulated power supplies, so they should compensate for any voltage drop on the power grid ... altough, an UPS is not out of the question.Quote from: devanno on January 27, 2015, 06:08:23 pmAll the computer stuff is already accounted for, including the software (CAD design, firmware programming ...)Quote from: devanno on January 27, 2015, 06:08:23 pmAbsolutely !Quote from: devanno on January 27, 2015, 06:08:23 pmAt the moment and IMHO, I don't think it will be necessary

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:07:19 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on January 27, 2015, 09:53:40 pmFully agree !I was asked to build this list of equipment, using their words: "all quality stuff". I know if I ask for "10" I'll only get "5" ... so better to aim high than go a little lower and get some crapy equipment ... if you know what I mean

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:27:53 pm
content: This type of equipment looks horrifically expensive from the "you want me to write you a check for WHAT out of my personal bank account?!" perspective. I'm certainly not going to buy a 1+Gig DSO any time soon.But, from a business perspective, giving a team of engineers and technicians and techs $10K, even $50K or more of quality gear so that they can see and understand how their designs behave is actually money reasonably spent. To spend a lot of money foolishly, all one needs to do is hire bunch of engineers, then make them work blindfolded.There is also leasing, which is TestEquity, Microlease's, et al raison d'etre, so a business doesn't have to cough all that up at once.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:50:26 pm
content: I agree. Working somewhere where they don't have or want to spend money on test equipment is just frustrating. Much like a snail eating it's own tail. Because you don't have the proper equipment you can't be productive. Because you can't be productive products needs more time to develop so there is less profit to spend on equipment.@the OP:Regarding DMMs: I really recommend to get benchtop models. You can buy several (5 or so) cheap ones like the Vici VC8145 for little money. The biggest advantage of a benchtop DMM is that you can stack them and because they are mains powered they never run out of batteries.

author: Dave Turner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 11:15:47 pm
content: Unless you know what you're designing, or propose to offer repair facilities for, and how much you have to invest it is a bit pointless trying to define a list.Back in the late 60's a school friend and I used to repair TV's and radios with no more than a couple of analogue multimeters, schematics and a load of spare parts. Oh and our brains!50 years later equipment, techniques and disciplines have multiplied and so has relatively affordable test equipment, unless one is working with Gig plus.So how long is your piece of string?

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 11:31:08 pm
content: Whether or not money is no object, for testing RF, I agree with Hugoneus, an RF signal generator for quantitatively testing your receiver sensitivity and functionality is at least as useful as a spec an.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 11:42:26 pm
content: Quote from: Dave Turner on January 27, 2015, 11:15:47 pmI'm not trying to make my own setup, or establish my own business, and even less a repair shop. Believe me when I say that I know exactly what it is to work with less than reasonable equipment. (I still have at home a Hitachi 2ch 20Mhz analog oscilloscope and a Kiotto analog multimeter and I still can find use for it)I'm not sure if you have been following this topic, but, this list is for a professional grade lab where some R&D will take place ... and I'm just the engineer who was asked to present a list of good quality equipment. Its not my wallet that has to jump forwardAnd as you might know, in such situations, a good quality equipment makes all the difference on the final product and the time that takes to get there - time is also money.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 02:48:04 am
content: It all seems very odd to me...The equipment you are listing would all be classed as (dull and boring) basic accessories in a professional R&D lab at a typical company. The cost would be insignificant 'noise' compared to the day to day running costs of the whole setup. The real TEqpt costs (and engineering interest) would be in whatever specialist gear you needed for the R&D work.However, I still think the bench DMMs could prove to be unnecessary and could even be a PITA if you have to work in a small area and stuff gets moved around a lot. A bench DMM will use up space and typically needs to be plugged into a wall socket and isn't very portable. Not sure how that fits in with robotics or field trials of UHF comms links.

author: Rupunzell
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 03:55:04 am
content: Making recommendations on test gear is difficult beyond the basic, O'scope, DVM, generator, power supply and the related shop-lab support stuff. Actual test gear needs is extremely dependent on what is specifically being worked on. Beyond specialized test gear, specially designed and built test gear and fixtures are quite common depending again on specific needs.Do not discount older test gear as there are plenty of nixie tube display and similar vintage test gear that is still in daily use at places like NASA and numerous other research facilities. These folks don't care about the latest or greatest, they only care about what instrument will deliver accurate, precise, reliable and repeatable results that match or can be correlated to calculated expectations.Bernice

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 02:31:13 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on January 28, 2015, 02:48:04 amI guess I wouldn't mind to work in such a company too, where they value more the developing team (the actual brain matter) than the lab gearQuote from: G0HZU on January 28, 2015, 02:48:04 amCan't say I fully agree, portable DMM are important too, of course ! they are, probably, the gear that one uses the most ... but a bench multimeter has other goodies, and I for one, I'm a bit tired of using a multimeter to log something (specially over a more or less long period of time) to later find out that it run out of batteries .. and even if it didn't run out of batteries, I still have to export data to some PC, and analize it there. In my opinion that is a even more "PITA" than the extra space it takes on the bench.Quote from: Rupunzell on January 28, 2015, 03:55:04 amThat is mypersonalopinion too, but things change a litte when someone at a higher level than you wants to start developing something new, and therefore willing to apply to some fund or bank loan or whatever (not really my concern) but at the same time is asking someone (me) to make a list of "good quality test equipment". In the past I have only worked with more modest equipment, and that is the reason why I'm here asking for some wise opinion, from persons that probably know this kind of equipment better than me.

author: katzohki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 04:32:59 pm
content: Here's another thought on the spectrum analyzer subject. As I see it there are a couple good alternatives to buying one:1.) Get a better high end 'scope and use the FFT when needed, rent a spec an when you really really need to.2.) Buy an older used model. They hold their value fairly well, but you can still get a great deal and a lot of the older ones are still able to be calibrated. I have a HP 3585A on my desk and it works wonderfully. The only drawback is it's not easy to take data from it. Usually I just use my iPhone to take a picture of the display lol.Also, if you're not really getting into the nitty gritty RF design and instead are using pre-built modules to do your RF stuff, then you probably don't need to worry about a spectrum analyzer anyway.

author: rstoer
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 06:41:45 pm
content: Quote from: LaurentR on January 26, 2015, 10:07:36 pmI absolutely agree with this post. As I read the responses from the top I was thinking the same thing - Buy the 87V and use the money saved to upgrade to the 34461A. The 289 is expensive, chews through batteries, and most of its best features better implemented on the 34461A.I also agree with the poster that said the B&K is a rebranded Siglent. There are several better options, including used.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 11:24:12 pm
content: QuoteI can only offer my advice based on my experience of working in R&D labs for the last 25 years. Basically nobody in our labs cares much about what make or model DMM they are using. H/H DMMs are the preferred choice.If stuff needs datalogging it is usually planned for in advance in hardware and so suitable BIT is included. So you can datalog 16 or 32 or even more ADC channel inputs at a time. So all PSU voltages, currents, temperatures, PLL status etc etc can be logged for as long as the gear under test is powered.It's fairly rare for me to see an engineer using a bench DMM for logging. They are big, slow and the resolution they offer is rarely needed and they usually only have one input. So it's often just a big, slow one trick pony that few people want on their bench.

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 11:32:45 pm
content: I like bench DMMs because they stay on the bench rather than being moved into peoples drawers and the batteries don't run out. It wouldn't be so bad when the batteries run out if more were readily available, without having to take the batteries out of someone elses handheld meter that they have just bought a fresh battery for and put away in their desk drawer.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 11:47:45 pm
content: Same here. And bench DMMs can do more than one trick. The ones I have can measure volt, current, continuity (fast!), Ohms, temperature and frequency. Two of them are always on my bench and I use them all the time. I bought my bench DMMs because I got fed up by having hand held DMMs cluttering the desk or standing in front of other equipment. I'm considering adding a third one to the stack.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 11:52:12 pm
content: In our labs the H/H DMM is king because of its portability. It can quickly be used across several benches or desks, it can quickly bleep test a cable at the other end of the lab. It can be handed across the tops of benches to another engineer who wants to make a quick measurement.It can be put in a pocket and taken to a meeting or to a field trial. It can quickly be placed in the operator's eyeline right next to the device being tested. So no need to keep looking up at a (stranded) bench DMM.The only real niggle is the battery saver function can kick in if not used for a while. Bench DMMs are popular in the test dept because the test engineers/techs tend to do predictable/repeatable measurements so they like to have the DMM in the same place all the time. There's also a kind of status associated with having a top DMM or scope over there. They also get used in ATE because they can be controlled using Labview or similar.QuoteBut you can usually only log one connection at a time with a bench DMM. A typical datalog run on some dev hardware would datalog dozens of parameters in parallel using multiple ADC channels.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 11:52:56 pm
content: Also my point. They don't run out of batteries, they are usually more precise, they can have more functions ... and you can stack it on top of some other equipment.IMHO, bench and hand held DMM are both useful, but for slightly different purposes.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:19:12 am
content: Obviously, not every company is the same but where I work the company has grown over 25 years and there are lots of design labs containing a great many RF/HW/SW/DSP/Mech designers and I bet if someone walked around all of the engineering labs they would not find more than two bench DMMs across all of the labs. It wouldn't surprise me if there were none in use at all as compared to several dozen H/H DMMs in easy view and quite a few more hidden in drawers or on shelves.Go to the test dept and there would be lots of 6.5 digit bench DMMs on display from Agilent etc. I think the real reason we don't have them in engineering is few people need them or want them taking up space or using up another mains socket. So this isn't just my opinion. I'm reporting what I've seen in R&D labs where there are (today) many £millions of test gear in use by dozens and dozens of engineers. So it's not like we couldn't also afford to provide the bench DMMs to the engineering labs. H/H DMMs are king here. Maybe other companies are different?

author: VK5RC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 01:29:57 am
content: I use my HH DMM more frequently than my bench MM. I would also pass a conventional business comment that any capital purchase should provide a return on investment at least 10 fold.I suspect this is behind some labs going broke and some good bargains!

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:36:34 am
content: Where are the transfer standards? IMO the FIRST consideration in a "professional lab" is not necessarily max specs and big brands with service to boot.....it's a set of known/maintained references....which are the basis for making ANY assessments about equipment, or your measurements. I.E. standards with more resolution, accuracy, stability etc etc than the measurement equipment itself. Obviously redundancy in those standards only furthers your confidence during development.Also where are the probes and cabling and ancillary solutions? Clean power? Various power analysis tools? Possibly some temperature analysis solutions (beyond the thermocouple realm).What about some temperature controlled cabinets, that have a reasonable degree of shielding?EM compliance probing solutions? etc etc etc....Those things say more to me about a "professional lab"....than a $30k scope or racks full of this or that. Maybe that's just me though?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:24:51 pm
content: Perhaps. It depends on what is being developed. If you are going to work on circuits requiring ppm range precision then you're likely to need references and equipment able to resolve that.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 09:18:32 pm
content: I'm not sure how vital transfer standards are going to be when doing R&D in robotics or VHF/UHF telemetry or doing some basic microcontroller work.At a guess they would just take up shelf space and cost lots of money...Quote from: Howardlong on January 27, 2015, 09:53:40 pmAgreed.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 09:28:08 pm
content: even if you only ever use them one time, when things just don't add up (measurements) they at least offer a sanity check, to determine if there is an error in a piece of test equipment.it would be a very bad indeed to calibrate a run of devices, only to realize the measurements were totally out of whack, and then wind up having to recall and re-cal/repair.....as a rule I always check all of my t&m gear before undertaking any task that is destined for production or requires any critical decision making/documentationafter all, how would one determine anything about their t&m gear without a known reference? especially when it's new....that is the most likely time for it to drift or fail.....t&m gear IS/ARE nothing more than expensive solutions that look for problems....to think otherwise is a bit misguided IMO.anyone who has been in a production environment understand the need for compliance testing and standards....that is what makes a "lab" "professional" and discerns it from a "hobby"....walk into production environment, and you will see more hardware and resources dedicated to QC and standards/protocols than anything else.....again, when I hear "professional" I think production....and development. trusting that what you are doing is accurate and repeatable is far more important than a scope or DMM that is far beyond the needs of the products.....for example....if your spec (on your product) needs a mask/window of +/- 100mV, to pass QC...then you only need a DMM that can read out to one least signffigant digit beyond that spec, and a reference to check the DMM against that is one least significant digit beyond that....this doesn't have to be uber fancy, high dollar transfer standards....a simple DMM check from voltagestandard.com would suffice....we are talking $300 to ensure potentially tens of thousands of dollars in potential lost resources....that is a no brainer IMO

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 09:38:47 pm
content: Maybe I'm latching onto the R&D side of things too much... but if you look at the V/UHF telemetry side of things I can't see where a transfer standard offers any realistic value.I have some experience of doing R&D in this area because back in the 1990s I was involved in the design of some telemetry gear for these bands. The research work involved developing something extemely small that would work across extreme termperature ranges (eg way below -40degC up to very high temperatures) and survive (thermally and electrically) after being buried in certain materials (eg mud or sand or snow) or subjected to shock and vibration or very large local inband signals. The idea was to try and design it with as much margin as possible so that you didn't 'need' accurate references to prove it worked to the requirements. So a transfer standard (for voltage/temperature/power) would not have added much value.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 09:47:33 pm
content: Quote from: Lagaffe on January 26, 2015, 09:43:31 pmthat is a somewhat broad scope.....

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 09:50:15 pm
content: for example some EM pre-compliance tools would be prudent....as "big boy" EMC has to be paid whether you pass or fail

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 09:50:29 pm
content: Perhaps I should add that for some EMC compliance it's unlikely you'll be allowed to self-certify. Certainly that applies to the FCC, where you'll need an accredited test house. Although you can do some pre-compliance testing, you need to know what you're doing even with that. Reading between the lines it sounds like it's likely the OP's outfit may not be aware of this.You might be able to get away with $10k for compliance testing for an intentional radiator such as the OP has alluded too. So keep that in mind, you might have to sell your underused T&M gear to pay for it!

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 09:53:54 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on January 29, 2015, 09:38:47 pmbut a temperature controlled isolation chamber would be prudent....and that in itself is a standard, for reference purposes....and it's temperature ranges and accuracy would need to be calibrated and verified...etc.....

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:00:24 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on January 29, 2015, 09:50:29 pmsome cheap per-compliance gear is all you need....a scope with some decent spectral tools, or half way decent spec an, and some cheap probes is all I was suggesting...it would be foolish to go further than that, but equally foolish to dish out the cash for "real" EMC, only to realize a very simple, stupid mistake was made....that could have been caught early on, with some simple and relatively inexpensive tools....again this stuff has to be looked at in relative terms, and stay within the scope and scale of your operation....spending on anechoic chambers, massive bandwidth, do all type systems makes zero sense.....but those simpler tools can save your ass....worse than having to sell gear to pay for EMC or similar certs, would be to lose your whole company, because you didn't do due diligencethere is some stuff that is just par for the course, and I don't think OP has factored in ANY of those basic needs....it's not about fancy stacks of gear...it's about key, useful pieces of gear, that are specific to your needs....that you can trust....obviously that is subject to various opinions etc....it is prudent IMO though

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:05:29 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on January 29, 2015, 09:47:33 pmBut doesn't the same thing apply? Unless you are developing very precise test and measurement gear then a transfer standard is often just a waste of space in an R&D environment. Most of my work is RF related but the company traditionally receives customer funding to look at all kinds of research work in electronics. AFAIK we don't have a DMM calibrator/checker (big yawn) or even a basic voltage reference or resistance reference in a box. We have loads of DMMs and they all go off for calibration/checking every year and it really doesn't matter how well calibrated they are as long as they meet their basic specs. If there's a doubt try another meter? So, realistically, what value is a transfer standard for voltage or resistance going to add?

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:09:00 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on January 29, 2015, 09:38:47 pmYep. All we have is the vague requirement to do R&D in analog, robotics, and some RF. I can imagine work that would fit that description where 3 digits of precision from a DMM would be vast overkill. On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine work that fits that description which would call for extremely high precision and repeatable accuracy.And yes, a common and valid strategy is to design your circuits with the right error margins so that high precision test equipment is not required for the purposes of aligning, calibrating, or testing it.Much RF work does require reasonably good frequency control, but you may be able to get the frequency from GPS, or from time standard broadcasts such as WWV, DCF77, etc.There's no end to what you can spend on voltage, current, or resistance standards, if you demand the best precision and accuracy possible. Each extra digit costs a lot more than the previous one. Since we can only guess at the requirements, I fall back to the logic of, "invest in whatever's going to bring in the money".A couple of name brand meters, cross-checked against each other, might be sufficient. An improvement would be to send one meter in for calibration regularly at a certified cal lab, and check your other meters against that. A further improvement would be regularly send all test equipment in for professionally calibration on schedule. If you're big enough, or if you can charge others enough for it, you might want to set up your own full professionally equipped calibration lab. Any of these strategies might make economic sense, depending on the nature of the work being done.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:12:52 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on January 29, 2015, 10:05:29 pmagain it depends on what you are calling a transfer standard.....I am not suggesting a mega dollar investment here.....just a means of performing a "sanity check"....are you saying that you guys have NEVER encountered a situation where something didn't "add up" and a known reference would have been useful? if so, then you ahve been very lucky IMO

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:12:58 pm
content: I guess everyone is biasing their opinion based on what sort of work they were/are involved. What is optimal and standard for one, might not be for other ... not all kind of work needs the same precision, and of course, equipment.Of course, any lab/production/research... is only as good as accurate there gear is. Maybe not the case for a regular hobbyist, but any company should have their t&m equipment checked and calibrated, and this is usually done by a 3rd party company based on some contract. I don't see it as an optional or something to remind every now and then ... it should be part of the process.I agree that this list of equipment is an overkill for a great deal of applications. But that is not the point, like I said before, I'm not the one who is paying for all of this. I was asked to present a list of "good quality equipment", and that was what I've done. I prefer to have equipment that goes well above the expectations than have something else "less good" and having to deal with the consequences ... besides, I know I'll get less than what I asked for ... so better to aim high and get less, than aim lower and get "junk".

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:16:21 pm
content: I just don't see how it can hurt, to have something as basic as this laying around....takes up almost no space, and costs very little.....that is just an example....if you deal with environmental conditions or RF, then simple standards that apply to those are prudent IMO...http://www.voltagestandard.com/DMMCheck_Plus.htmla cheap EM probe set....a simple "environmental chamber"....some simple isolate/shielded enclosures etc.....hell you can build most of this stuff on your own, for next to nothing.....the cost of not doing basic checks is VERY high

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:21:31 pm
content: I'm blown away by the concept of having no clue if you'll pass regulatory compliance until you're at the testing company with the proverbial meter running.Wow. Just wow...

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:22:40 pm
content: Quote from: Lagaffe on January 29, 2015, 10:12:58 pm"standards" don't necessarily mean "precision".....it simply means a point of reference....in relation to your specific tasks.....for example at my company we do some product packaging, as well as production, and we have a defined set of standards and references for those purposes.....they net us higher yields, and less RMA issues....they aren't uber expensive solutions, but have saved us untold, time, resources and potential bad will.....obviously the set of standards you choose need to be in line with your projects....but working with zero point of reference or protocol/standards can lead to some real problems....and if you never have to fall back on those standards, that is just gravybut you will be very happy you have those in place, when the proverbial "shit hits the fan"....logging and maintaining records is quite valuable, from liability and productivity stand-point.....insurance companies like to see such things, and those records make quick work of any potential legal matters (down the line)....

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:24:48 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on January 29, 2015, 10:00:24 pmAbsolutely ! I believe I've mentioned that before, having a spectrum analyzer (and the prober for it, of course) ... for a pre-EMC, but I guess that can be done with "almost" any spectrum analyzer, and if not, there is always the possibility to rent one.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:26:32 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on January 29, 2015, 10:21:31 pmsame here, but I guess some folks like to learn things the hard way

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:29:28 pm
content: Quote from: AG6QR on January 29, 2015, 10:09:00 pmhuh? engineering isn't "vague"....it's specific.....professional applications require a hell of a lot more than broad reaching guesses.....what happens down the line when things aren't so "vague" anymore? and you haven't budgeted for those scenarios....yikes....I think there are some MASSIVE oversights being made by your company....

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:32:04 pm
content: Quote from: Lagaffe on January 29, 2015, 10:24:48 pmeven the best of us have an off day, and that is where your gear should save your ass....provided you are awake enough to use it properlybeen there, and learned some very hard lessons....I am sure we all have

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:37:12 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on January 29, 2015, 10:29:28 pmAgree completely, but I think you may be misinterpreting and/or misattributing what I said. When I saidallwehave is the vague requirement...., the "we" I was referring to was you, me, and all of the other posters on this thread except Lagaffe, the one whose lab is being discussed. I would hope Lagaffe or those at his company have some more concrete and specific requirements, but the rest of us on this forum have to guess."My" company has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:40:28 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on January 29, 2015, 10:21:31 pmThe usual way is to do a pre-compliance check. But being absolutely sure requires an expensive test chamber, antenna's, calibration, etc, etc which in the end is more expensive than renting the lab for a few hours. If a device fails at one test during compliance testing you can always rent the lab for a few hours to redo the measurements which failed earlier.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:41:18 pm
content: QuoteWe are going a bit off topic here but my work involves RF design and experience has taught me that when something doesn't add up in a measurement then it's usually down to poor procedures, or external interference effects or unrealistic expectations of accuracy after all sources of measurement uncertainty are taken into account.Also, it's rare to be making a measurement at the same frequency/level/impedance as a calibration reference. For example, at work we don't have formal calibration sources/standards for RF power up at many GHz or for signal levels down in the picowatt region at any frequency. So we have to rely on using lab grade RF power meters or analysers from Agilent etc. However, there are practical ways to reduce the measurement uncertainty when trying to overcome these issues but this is beyond the scope of this thread

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:58:07 pm
content: QuoteI think you need some idea what type of research work you will be doing... When our company was very small we did a lot of customer funded research and this is a great way to expand the test equipment inventory.The customer(s) came to us for our skills, response/delivery time and versatility but often they asked us for stuff we didn't have the right test gear for. So we negotiated for gear to be lent or hired or even donated as part of the research task. I think we charged something like £2k a week per engineer on a typical task. So trying to get business from external customers is one way to bring in income and expand your lab. If you go down this road you will soon see why I see your current list of test gear as being just a few insignificant lab accessories.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 11:07:43 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on January 29, 2015, 10:26:32 pmAnd it ain't justhavingsome snazzy T&M gear. You need to know how to use it too. That is what is really concerning me about this thread, it sounds dangerously to me like it might just be a trophy lab. Far better to invest in a consultant who knows their onions for a few days throughout the entire project lifetime, not only testing but also giving skills transfer. Blindly getting to your first board spin after six months only to find you need to piss it all away is not going to be fun. Having the right skills around a couple of times a month will pay off, and if they're any good they're likely to have their own kit anyway.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 11:18:33 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on January 29, 2015, 10:58:07 pmFrom the comments, I can only suppose I couldn't make myself clear ...Ipersonallyagree with the majority of what was said in here, and in particularly your last post. But for all this gear, for the company where this (might) will be used, I'm not the decision maker, and I don't have any vote on the final decision, and even if I had, I suppose nobody will listen.All my life I've worked with inferior equipment than the one on this list, that is why I felt I should look for some wise information regarding "good quality equipment" (like I've mentioned several times before) ... because, as we all know, on the market there are many brands/models/options(...) and I just wanted to pick some.I can't stress this enough,at this point, I'm not worried about certifications, EMC proceedings, way to get funds ... how this or that will fit in the global picture. I was only looking for a list of equipment, only that and nothing more.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 11:25:26 pm
content: Maybe it is better to get an annual equipment budget. There is sense in buying equipment when you need it because at that point you'll know what you need.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 11:25:42 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on January 29, 2015, 10:58:07 pmFunny you should say that, I lent some kit out (a VNA and RF test set) about 18 months ago to an aerospace company who were developing a satellite. They had my test gear for about a year. I went there to help out with one of their projects for a couple of days as they were struggling, and as it had one of our payloads on it we felt that as a technical reputation thing it was worth giving them some free help.To my surprise, they had almost no electronic T&M gear anywhere, not in the general labs nor in the clean room where we were doing the satellite integration testing. Some power supplies, a scope or two, some logging stuff and DMMs, but that was it. They did have a super expensive looking thermal/vac chamber though. A very strange outfit, looks like it was run by a few too many accountants who'd reached their Peter Principle. However as it was a government funded project, it had to work (or at least look like it worked).

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 11:41:32 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on January 29, 2015, 11:07:43 pmyep....that is where the smart money goes....I think people just starting into the investment chain of a "professional lab", get caught up in quantity of bells and whistles.....and ignore having exactly what they "need"....which includes verifying that it meets those needs....I can't imagine blindly designing and manufacturing products, without some point of reference, by which to build standards....most of the "professional labs" i have been in have minimal gear, but that gear is specif, in a designated task, and a maintained set or protocols and standards, by which to use it....sometimes all you NEED is fulfilled by ancient and minimal gear, but those pieces are prime examples and trustworthy....downtime costs more than any fancy piece of gear, and if it doesn't then it's not a production environment.....at least for me it's all about trusting what I am using, and not worrying about some esoteric feature....as I don't have time in production to make such determinations....that's what the non production lab is for.....make assessments about new acquisitions and procedures there, and not on the production floor, or on production batches of product....

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 12:06:41 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on January 29, 2015, 11:07:43 pmHaven't read the whole thread, but from what I gather the OP has been asked by his company set up a lab using decent gear, and that's what he's looking for.Nothing wrong with that, and not a "trophy lab" at all. This happens all the time in industry. Usually you are given a budget to spend on a new lab and they leave it up to you to decide what you want.At very large companies we'd often get that with every new major contract. They win a new contract and $$$$$ is set aside for a new lab gear to do it.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 12:24:23 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2015, 12:06:41 amThanks Dave, its exactly that !

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 12:29:33 am
content: QuoteBut none of us know what you want to do with the gear and what your requirements are for accuracy or range.QuoteBut usually the people buying that gear know what they want. If there is any doubt then I would recommend trying to blag as much gear as possible on trial from the manuf/distributor reps and decide what is suitable by playing with the gear hands on.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 01:50:33 am
content: I find the diversity of opinions on this matter quite interesting....doesn't seem like there is really a cut and dry answer and perhaps the original question is "too cut and dry"Interesting either way...

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 02:35:16 am
content: Quote from: G0HZU on January 30, 2015, 12:29:33 amAnd neither does he, I'm sure. Most of us don't get an email from the future exactly describing the problems we will face with an indented BOM of what we'll need to solve it. You must be blessed with more prescience than the rest of us.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 06:25:46 am
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on January 30, 2015, 01:50:33 amFor me the answer depends on if it's a fixed lab budget or not.If you know you have a $$$$$ to spend then you try and cram as much potentially useful stuff in there as possible. i.e. I'd rather have a spectrum analyser and a scope, than just a kick arse scope and no spectrum analyser.If it's "tell us what you want and how much it will cost" then it's a bit trickier. My approach there is to list all the different gear I want, and then upscale a few of those items, e.g. a better scope at double the price. If they come back and say "total is too expensive" (they never say "too much gear", or "this line item costs too much") then you scale back to the original scope you were happy with to begin with and save some big bucks and you look like a hero.But if you don't have that "wank buffer" in there then you risk losing out on gear or what you want/need when they hard ball you. You need that room to move down a bit and still get what you want.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 07:37:06 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2015, 06:25:46 amOf course, that is how ALL hand me down budgets work....but the real question is what does one actually "need" to accomplish the goals set by the bean counters.....that is the part that most people seem to miss.....what I really need is a xyz box so my abc widget doesn't tear someones face off.....but someone else is paying for it, so fuck it....imma buy hookers and blow

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 07:43:09 am
content: Quote from: Lagaffe on January 30, 2015, 12:24:23 amIf that is the case, then the contract will detail the project, and you'll have a budget. Right now there is little project detail and no budget specified.All we know is it's a remote control in the 433MHz ISM band. Is it just the transmit side, or is it both ends? Is it bidirectional? If it's in the 433MHz ISM band then it will not be wide band or high bit rate. What is the interface to the radio? Are you designing more than just the RF bit, and if so, what is the nature of that? Is this an R&D or production project?I'm now wondering if the contract is yet to be awarded and as part of the RFP the prospective customer needs to know what's in your lab (or isn't, as the case may be!)

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 03:37:20 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 29, 2015, 11:25:26 pmNot to mention, if you need something like twice a year for a week, like RF precompliance testing, it makes more sense to rent it for the two week than actually buy it. That is why the budget would be better.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 08:58:30 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on January 30, 2015, 02:35:16 amMaybe you can see more into the future than me? I was merely suggesting caution with the budget until a better sense of direction was known.But you are the one suggesting (in post #19) he spunks up nearly £2000 for a pair of exotic DMMs and Benchvue. If someone bought those meters for our R&D labs they would sit there on a storeroom shelf unloved (too big/bulky and non portable with a cluttered UI) and would eventually end up on a test engineer's bench as an expensive bit of eye candy.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 10:04:40 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on January 30, 2015, 07:43:09 amI never said it was for some contract or outsourcing or anything like that ... I also never mentioned that this was/is a RF project.If you read back some pages, you'll find that I've said:"The equipment will be used mainly for robotics and automation, but this includes almost everything you have in electronics. Starting from batteries, you have analog and power electronics, going to some gyros and accelerometers and you have digital and signal processing, making something remote controlled and you have RF ... sensors and actuators and there will be some network (CAN, most likely) ... and so it goes. Even for me it is difficult to make a very specific topicA scope with a large bw is good, but I guess I'll go for a scope with good sampling rate and memory depth ... at least for now. But with a bw >= 200Mhz"Even before this, I also said:Research, design, prototyping, everthing from scrach till a final product. RF will be used, but I guess for some ASK 433.92MHz remote control ... nothing on the GHz side of spectrum.Of course, I haven't been so specific about this project, and I can't ... yah company policies suck, I know !About the RF part, I'm not even considering designing it, I don't think there will be a need for a high bit rate or even transmitting power. And for that I can get some certified RF modules (go to any electronic suppliers company and you get it by the dozen!) ... and if they are already certified, one less thing to worry. I even have dropped the option of getting a spectrum analyzer, and instead renting one, or just have it integrated on the scope.Are you woring about the final value for all the gear that I've mentioned? ... well, the mechanical part of the thing is at least one order of magnitude higher. If someone, at the company, gave you a rough idea of what they are planning to start developing, and ask you "make a list of good quality equipment that you need" ... what would you do?, wait until you have a list of all the specifics an then (only then) present a list of equipment ? ... ask for some rudimentar gear because you don't really know what you need, and you don't want the company to spend money on "fullish things" ? Ask for a future budjet ... and hopping that when you'll need something this budjet still exist ?I don't know about you. As for me, I'll try to get the most diversified equipment that I can possible get, at the end, they might say "too expensive" and then, I'll try to find something "less expensive". If I don't ask, I'll not get! IMO, its better to bargain and get something, than let the oportunity pass and regreat it later. Andnothis isnota trophy lab !

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 10:29:44 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on January 30, 2015, 08:58:30 pmA recommendation based on using those meters in the past and today. I'm looking at a pair of said "trophy meters" right now. I love them and use them frequently. They're great general purpose tools. Paid for out of my own pocket I like them so much. I have a pair of handhelds as well. Each serves a purpose and neither can completely replace the other.The OP asked for advice. Instead, you have decided to pass judgement. Your present job is not representative of everyone's. Your work environment and managerial directives are not universally representative either. And the static signals you use your handheld DMM to measure with such great success might not be the signals the OP's robot is barfing out.And once again, the cost of this stuff is trivial in the big picture.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 11:58:40 pm
content: Quote from: Lagaffe on January 30, 2015, 10:04:40 pmThe first description you gave of the project was regarding a 433MHz remote control, so I'd assumed this was the fundamental part of the project. I do fully accept that I did miss the other description about robotics and automation part.QuoteDon't fight it! Tere are plenty of us with trophy labs on this forum! (Maybe we've just coined a new phrase too).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 12:06:24 am
content: And you don't have to use every piece of equipment every day for it to pay for itself.

author: Dave Turner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 12:17:51 am
content: When my bosses used to ask me how long something would take I'd always use the 'Scotty' principle - double what I thought likely and add a bit - it's amazing how practical that works out in practice.The same was true of the equipment budget; double what you really think and add a bit. The bean counters will bleat and either you'll end up with just enough to do the work or with a bit of luck your lab will truly gain ability. Depending on circumstance I'd always lobby for a yearly equipment budget for replacement/upgrade plus a slush fund.It worked for me in a company network environment where historically a lack of sufficient yearly investment caused a nasty financial shock when having to completely reinvest due to hopelessly outdated equipment.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 12:52:17 am
content: QuoteThat's why I'd expect an engineer to design adequate BITE into a system such that they didn't need lots of lab grade DMMs for logging etc.I really don't think we would want to rely on BenchVue for stuff like this either. That stuff (i.e. Benchvue and the exotic DMM) is better suited to the test department or maybe customer support if someone wanted to do some basic logging of a faulty unit without needing much in the way of programming skills.QuoteI gave pretty good advice in my first post. Most of my other posts have been trying to preach common sense about how little extra value there is to be gained from buying expensive bench DMMs and calibration standards

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 12:56:38 am
content: And what do you do when you're stuck with someone else's design and have to characterize and integrate it Mr. Smartypants?============================================================================And for the love of all that is Holy, do not confuse the me or anyone else here with TunerSandwich.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 01:09:08 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on January 31, 2015, 12:56:38 amMost stuff comes with some kind of an ICD and if it doesn't then I really don't see how having a 6.5 digit bench DMM is going to add much value if you had to reverse engineer something.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 01:30:07 am
content: Quote from: G0HZU on January 31, 2015, 01:09:08 amYou are so fortunate to have everything work according to the data sheet. Many of us yearn to reach your Utopian plane.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 02:40:17 am
content: Have to say I'm with G0HZU on this, I've never been able to figure outpracticallyspeaking why you need a precision DMM to 6.5 digits unless it's for some certification box ticking.I can however understand why you need accurate frequency sources to rubidium standards, there is a very practical use for those in RF particularly in the GHz.If it's not for procedural form filling, what do you do with this DMM accuracy? It's not a criticism, I'm really just genuinely interested to know.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 03:33:07 am
content: You two are absolutely fixated on the number of digits of the meter. The accuracy is a side benefit for the few times that its needed (characterizing sensor drift is one time it's handy). It wasn't a primary purchasing criteria. It's the functionality, display capabilities, and refresh rate that are what makes the reviled, opulent, TrophyMeter9000 a good tool. It's just hilarious to me how much you two are railing on me for this meter. In between posts today, I've been working on an RTC and using the charting to quickly see what's going on with the battery bus. I can get a nice real time chart of its behavior in seconds after hooking up the probes. Meanwhile, my scope is free to pull data off the I2C bus.If I had used my handheld DMM for this purpose I couldn't have seen what was happening because it's update rate is too slow. And I would have needed to record and plot the data separately. The all in one device is just faster, better, and more convenient.Next, I'm sure you're going to tell me how wrong and unnecessary it is to have serial decoding on a scope.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 03:36:40 am
content: Ok, so,it's not the accuracy, it's the logging capability.Thank you for filling me in.I get serial decoding, been using it all day myself in fact on my Infiniium trophy scope.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 03:48:26 am
content: The 34461a is essentially a very slow, high-accuracy DSO with a really poor UI (for a DSO). It's very useful for me and allows me to maximize my time solving problems, not charting data.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 02:56:42 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on January 31, 2015, 03:33:07 amIt's not exactly research and development is it?Bench DMMs are great for T&M applications but experience of working in R&D labs (and watching the work patterns of hundreds of engineers over 25 years) has shown me that the demand for bench DMMs is very low.However, I can understand why a decent DMM is needed for IC design and for critical design work for the development of formal T&M gear and for its versatility in a test or ATE environment but I suspect that your two meters are probably better than any DMMs we have ever used (as in needed) in our engineering labs in over 25 years.As for high speed logging, we tend to leapfrog the DMM and use multiple fast ADCs that allow the captured data to be post processed using all kinds of tools including DSP, SW tools or spreadsheets etc. There could be dozens of things logged in parallel like this. To do this with DMMs would mean slower data capture rates and lots of £££ DMMs taking up lots of space...

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 05:39:57 pm
content: All this rattling about the 34461A reminds me of a conversation I had many (many) years ago, about a PC (Amstrad 1512, if you are in to those things) that had fit an optional hard drive, of a whooping 20MB (yes MB !!) ... and someone saying: "why you want such a big hard drive ? .. you will never be able to fill it!"For those who are not happy with choosing a bench MM like the 34461A ... well, folks, you are all free to use whatever you can or want - that is why there are so many products on the market. If you are worried about the price, then sorry, but one only worries about the price when he can't afford it. And I'm even more sorry to tell you, that if you think 860€ is too much for a compan to spend on a quality multimeter like this one, well, what can I say, its better to change business, and grow potatoes ... or something.

author: Lagaffe
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 05:53:56 pm
content: Quote from: Dave Turner on January 31, 2015, 12:17:51 amThat "Scotty" principle is genious... I guess I'll start to use it too

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 06:33:11 pm
content: Quote from: Lagaffe on January 31, 2015, 05:39:57 pmI do indeed remember those Amstrads, and PCs before them. I had one on my desk for a year or so at one company I worked at, as well as some Z80 cross assembly and Microsoft Pascal, I did some ORCAD PCB layout on one, we used to think it was amazing, even with its 640x200 CGA graphics.QuoteBy that logic, I might as well go and buy myself a hairdryer. I am bald, but maybe one day it'll grow back and I might be able to use it one day. Or perhaps not.As I run my own business, I buy all my own test equipment, so unlike your situation it's my money I'm spending and not someone else's. Perhaps I have a different way of looking at it. And that works both ways: if I can see value and RoI in having a piece of equipment for a project, than I will buy it there and then, I won't wait for some beancounter to sign it off. But I also won't buy it if I don't see a need for it, or there is better value elsewhere or doing it differently. I could be using it to go on holiday or something.That's why I questioning why you think you need it, it is not meant to put you on the defensive, if anything I might learn something about it, and perhaps change my mind and get one myself, you never know, I might have a use for one and didn't know it.