Nice production of this Fluke 107. I have used different brands of multimeters over a few years, that have more features and functions than this Fluke. However these other multimeters seem to have problems like, beeper not responding to continuity, test leads not making connection in multimeter, display starts to fade, uses more battery power than needed. I have now purchased this new Fluke which I shall be using from now onwards. Thank you and happy Christmas
Thank you for your comments! I have such cheap DMM and clamp meter like you described. Fluke on the other hand is consistent with their quality, at least from the ones I have had experience with. They seem to design their test equipment based on the task, not based on how many functions they can cram in a unit. I think this is why it's preferred by a lot of pros and companies since they know what to look for and Fluke has an answer for it. The 107 has basic functions but it does them quite well. Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year!
Thanks for posting your review of this meter. I have a 107 also . . . My only complaint so far is the concerning the capacitor test selection, it displays 0.10 while “idling” on the bench. Not familiar with this test feature, have little confidence with the values I am reading. I too, have no manual, so I’m not sure what I need to do to understand this feature.
Thanks for watching. If you mean that your F107 display 0.1 nano-farad while not measuring anything, it is a normal occurrence. The meter was likely picking up stray capacitance on the test leads or terminal inputs. Besides this, the online user's manual mentions that there can be errors due to test lead capacitance and capacitor substrate (up to 1.5 nano-farad in the 50 nano-farad range). Your 0.1 nano-farad reading is well within this tolerance. In addition it has an accuracy rating of 2% plus 5 digits. This is not a defect of the meter. Simply it's technical limitations. What this means in practical terms is that, if you're measuring in the nano-farads range, you may want to take this possible error and % accuracy into account. If you're just testing capacitors in the microfarad range, you can just ignore the random fractional numbers since 0.1 nano-farad is too small compared to 1 microfarad (1 nano-farad= 0.001 microfarad). If you need much higher accuracy and even smaller range you may want to look at dedicated capacitor meters, like LCR meters. As an experiment, from OFF position, touch the tips of the F107's test leads together, then turn ON the meter to the capacitor testing function. Did the display show 0.0? Also test a capacitor of known microfarad value and compare with your F107's display. They should be close, give or take 2% deviation.
@@ramschannelreviews Much thanks for your helpful response. I am a retired M.E., with a limited (nodding) acquaintance of solid state electronics. I had sourced replacement capacitors for a failed circuit in a (motorized) garage door opener control panel-I was cautioned by knowing peers to check the values of the new capacitors to confirm the specifications were correct. This was a lot purchase, a (5) pack sold through “Amazon”, on-line. Upon careful testing, I received different measurements on all (5), not a single match in the total lot! I understand tolerance in machined/fabricated mechanical components, and the perspective of scale in the measurements of such physical, known, ‘hard” materials. I recognize that I lack a clear understanding of a comparable scale in terms of electronic wizardry. Is there a correlational example of electrical measurements that follow say, the spectrum of toolroom micrometers- to-microscopic inspection (angstroms, even!), in the materials world, that could characterize the scale of electrical values with respect to measurements? (I pose this question in a rhetorical sense, I’m certainly treading in uncharted waters here !) Nonetheless, thanks again for your commentary . . . I did perform the the lead test, with the display powering up at 0.00 in the capacitor selection setting. That tip alone has restored my confidence in the 107 . . . if a Fluke Representative should happen upon this channel, they should sing you praises accordingly! My next hurdle is learning to de-solder/replace PCB components . . . can I remove these caps using my Bridgeport vertical mill? 😄.
@@franknewberry7250Thanks for your appreciation! I was relieved your questions were rhetorical since they're way over my head, LOL! It takes an engineer to replace a wordy "when not measuring anything" with the more efficient "idling!" I'm a retired EE myself. My field of expertise was power quality- energy solutions when I was still with the electric utility, where I developed a special interest in some electrical test equipment. But purely electronics, not so much. So I regret I can't give you any tips on soldering. Based on the result of that simple test, I'd say your F107 was consistent with normal, known response from another sample F107. But there's a reason many electrical practitioners keep 2 or more testers. One is main, the other is a backup and a check meter. I try to avoid the words "accurate meter" since this is not accurate (what an irony) but rather "indications of accuracy" or "consistent" or "within specs." But when others say their meter is a accurate I know they just mean it's operating normally. Good luck on your projects, sir! We never really retire when we keep busy.
Shipping that Electronic device in that bag is ridiculous. I despise that crap! I am sorry You received it like that. 🙄 Really thorough and very informative and well presented review! I piked up a 107 fro my local Store, and at first was very impressed by the feelin in the hand, and how the rotary switch worked. I was less happy and disappointed with the backlight button, which made the case ‘creak,’ and then discovered the case had a distinctive creaking noise on the left side. It was in one of those blister packages, so it had never been opened before. I may return/ exchange it, and have since found it cheaper on Amazon, so will see if one of the big box stores ( Lowe’s/Home Depot ) will match the price? I paid $139.00 USD here in June 2024. Stay safe and well!
Thank you for your appreciation! That packaging was indeed abysmal. Unfortunately when there was no option at amazon check out to "deliver in amazon box" you're packaging is left at the discretion of the shipper. The body of my F107 has a bit of creak, too, when pressed. But it does not affect anything. I didn't like it, as well. But I believe it's an expected occurrence from manufacturing this budget range of the Fluke DMMs. Looking at amazon prices at this time, I see several good deals for it. There's one with a case for just U$103. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. Good luck and safe testing!
@@ramschannelreviews Thank You for the great reply! Thanks for your views on your unit, and I am surprised yours has the same ‘creaking’ when pressed, but I concur with You regarding the manufacture of this to a price point. After watching your video, and taking mine apart, I believe the noise comes from the way the two halves go together where it has a slight curve. It fits the hand rather nicely, but it probably contributes to the two halves not fitting as precise as they could be? It is after all, plastic, and the only way around it would be addition of a couple of extra screws, and then added cost? I see a couple of YT videos on ‘water damaged’ 107 meters, so maybe the two halves could fit together better? Safe testing to You as well.
@@georgedavall9449 Yes, the shape fits the hand well. Be careful, though, not to over tighten the screw. The first time I removed them they were a bit too tight. The metallic screws were embedded only on plastic which can get worn out if tightened too much. In any case you only need to deal with those screws if you need to replace the fuse. The battery cover, meanwhile, only needs a small coin or flat head screw driver to open, which is a good design, but not water resistant.
@@ramschannelreviews Appreciate the replies, and the sound advice! Good point on those screws, and I found the same thing to be true. The battery compartment access is clever, but I have my reservations on it? I tried a little ‘experiment,’ and I wanted to share it with You. I had the case apart, and applied a small strip of scotch tape to both sides, on the back half, near the middle where it ‘creaks,’ and put it back together, and lo and behold, no more creaking! Try it! I observed the meter as reading a bit ‘low’ when compared to other meters? I know there is a given tolerance in the accuracy, but it was lower in values when checking batteries, checking the outlets (mains as y’all say ) etc. I need to find some fuses, diodes, and check it out further. I would be curious to know if the scotch tape thing worked for you? Cheers!
@@georgedavall9449 No I didn't try the Scotch tape hack. I'm alright with a little creaking, hehe. But since it worked out well for you, it's all good. If you think your F107 reads low, one thing you can do to check, is to have another AC averaging meter and compare their AC voltage readings. As you know it may not read the same as a true RMS meter, like a Fluke 117, for example. For DC, so long as its readings are within spec, it's not a defect. Just now I made a quick comparison using a lithium battery: Hioki DT4256 reads 3.813V, Fluke 107 reads 3.805V. Car battery: DT4256= 12.29V, Fluke 107=12.26V. For my use cases, perfectly acceptable results.
I think most of their top shelf models, like the 87V, are still made in the US. My Fluke 115, F116, F117 & Fluke 324 were made in Singapore, my Fluke T6-1000 & this Fluke 107 were made in China. I believe that even if a Fluke is made outside of the US, so long as its genuine, it's still carries the brand's quality. Thanks for watching.
@@georgedavall9449 Good day! I thought you'd be interested in a case for a Fluke 107. I found this from amazon (not advertising them), for information purpose only. th-cam.com/video/jdJ9qaR_tL4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xLGnrh_PYllkelZI
![[CC] How Fluke 107's AC Voltage Compare with a True RMS & another Averaging DMM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CztUlf4yETk/mqdefault.jpg)
![CAMPปลิ้น | รวม Highlight 2024! PART [1/2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6hnvNnvYloU/mqdefault.jpg)
Nice production of this Fluke 107. I have used different brands of multimeters over a few years, that have more features and functions than this Fluke. However these other multimeters seem to have problems like, beeper not responding to continuity, test leads not making connection in multimeter, display starts to fade, uses more battery power than needed. I have now purchased this new Fluke which I shall be using from now onwards. Thank you and happy Christmas
Thank you for your comments! I have such cheap DMM and clamp meter like you described. Fluke on the other hand is consistent with their quality, at least from the ones I have had experience with. They seem to design their test equipment based on the task, not based on how many functions they can cram in a unit. I think this is why it's preferred by a lot of pros and companies since they know what to look for and Fluke has an answer for it. The 107 has basic functions but it does them quite well. Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year!
Thanks for posting your review of this meter. I have a 107 also . . . My only complaint so far is the concerning the capacitor test selection, it displays 0.10 while “idling” on the bench. Not familiar with this test feature, have little confidence with the values I am reading. I too, have no manual, so I’m not sure what I need to do to understand this feature.
Thanks for watching. If you mean that your F107 display 0.1 nano-farad while not measuring anything, it is a normal occurrence. The meter was likely picking up stray capacitance on the test leads or terminal inputs. Besides this, the online user's manual mentions that there can be errors due to test lead capacitance and capacitor substrate (up to 1.5 nano-farad in the 50 nano-farad range). Your 0.1 nano-farad reading is well within this tolerance. In addition it has an accuracy rating of 2% plus 5 digits. This is not a defect of the meter. Simply it's technical limitations.
What this means in practical terms is that, if you're measuring in the nano-farads range, you may want to take this possible error and % accuracy into account. If you're just testing capacitors in the microfarad range, you can just ignore the random fractional numbers since 0.1 nano-farad is too small compared to 1 microfarad (1 nano-farad= 0.001 microfarad). If you need much higher accuracy and even smaller range you may want to look at dedicated capacitor meters, like LCR meters.
As an experiment, from OFF position, touch the tips of the F107's test leads together, then turn ON the meter to the capacitor testing function. Did the display show 0.0? Also test a capacitor of known microfarad value and compare with your F107's display. They should be close, give or take 2% deviation.
@@ramschannelreviews Much thanks for your helpful response. I am a retired M.E., with a limited (nodding) acquaintance of solid state electronics. I had sourced replacement capacitors for a failed circuit in a (motorized) garage door opener control panel-I was cautioned by knowing peers to check the values of the new capacitors to confirm the specifications were correct. This was a lot purchase, a (5) pack sold through “Amazon”, on-line. Upon careful testing, I received different measurements on all (5), not a single match in the total lot!
I understand tolerance in machined/fabricated mechanical components, and the perspective of scale in the measurements of such physical, known, ‘hard” materials. I recognize that I lack a clear understanding of a comparable scale in terms of electronic wizardry. Is there a correlational example of electrical measurements that follow say, the spectrum of toolroom micrometers- to-microscopic inspection (angstroms, even!), in the materials world, that could characterize the scale of electrical values with respect to measurements? (I pose this question in a rhetorical sense, I’m certainly treading in uncharted waters here !)
Nonetheless, thanks again for your commentary . . . I did perform the the lead test, with the display powering up at 0.00 in the capacitor selection setting. That tip alone has restored my confidence in the 107 . . . if a Fluke Representative should happen upon this channel, they should sing you praises accordingly!
My next hurdle is learning to de-solder/replace PCB components . . . can I remove these caps using my Bridgeport vertical mill? 😄.
@@franknewberry7250Thanks for your appreciation! I was relieved your questions were rhetorical since they're way over my head, LOL! It takes an engineer to replace a wordy "when not measuring anything" with the more efficient "idling!" I'm a retired EE myself. My field of expertise was power quality- energy solutions when I was still with the electric utility, where I developed a special interest in some electrical test equipment. But purely electronics, not so much. So I regret I can't give you any tips on soldering. Based on the result of that simple test, I'd say your F107 was consistent with normal, known response from another sample F107. But there's a reason many electrical practitioners keep 2 or more testers. One is main, the other is a backup and a check meter. I try to avoid the words "accurate meter" since this is not accurate (what an irony) but rather "indications of accuracy" or "consistent" or "within specs." But when others say their meter is a accurate I know they just mean it's operating normally. Good luck on your projects, sir! We never really retire when we keep busy.
Thanks for the detailed reviews Engr.
Thanks for your appreciation sir!
Interesting! thank you for the review
Thanks for watching!
Very useful & informative video, thank you 👍
Thanks for your support! I appreciate it.
Shipping that Electronic device in that bag is ridiculous. I despise that crap! I am sorry You received it like that. 🙄
Really thorough and very informative and well presented review! I piked up a 107 fro my local Store, and at first was very impressed by the feelin in the hand, and how the rotary switch worked. I was less happy and disappointed with the backlight button, which made the case ‘creak,’ and then discovered the case had a distinctive creaking noise on the left side. It was in one of those blister packages, so it had never been opened before. I may return/ exchange it, and have since found it cheaper on Amazon, so will see if one of the big box stores ( Lowe’s/Home Depot ) will match the price? I paid $139.00 USD here in June 2024.
Stay safe and well!
Thank you for your appreciation! That packaging was indeed abysmal. Unfortunately when there was no option at amazon check out to "deliver in amazon box" you're packaging is left at the discretion of the shipper. The body of my F107 has a bit of creak, too, when pressed. But it does not affect anything. I didn't like it, as well. But I believe it's an expected occurrence from manufacturing this budget range of the Fluke DMMs. Looking at amazon prices at this time, I see several good deals for it. There's one with a case for just U$103. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. Good luck and safe testing!
@@ramschannelreviews Thank You for the great reply! Thanks for your views on your
unit, and I am surprised yours has the same ‘creaking’ when pressed, but I concur with You regarding the manufacture of this to a price point. After watching your video, and taking mine apart, I believe the noise comes from the way the two halves go together where it has a slight curve. It fits the hand rather nicely, but it probably contributes to the two halves not fitting as precise as they could be? It is after all, plastic, and the only way around it would be addition of a couple of extra screws, and then added cost? I see a couple of YT videos on ‘water damaged’ 107 meters, so maybe the two halves could fit together better? Safe testing to You as well.
@@georgedavall9449 Yes, the shape fits the hand well. Be careful, though, not to over tighten the screw. The first time I removed them they were a bit too tight. The metallic screws were embedded only on plastic which can get worn out if tightened too much. In any case you only need to deal with those screws if you need to replace the fuse. The battery cover, meanwhile, only needs a small coin or flat head screw driver to open, which is a good design, but not water resistant.
@@ramschannelreviews Appreciate the replies, and the sound advice! Good point on those screws, and I found the same thing to be true. The battery compartment access is clever, but I have my reservations on it?
I tried a little ‘experiment,’ and I wanted to share it with You. I had the case apart, and applied a small strip of scotch tape to both sides, on the back half, near the middle where it ‘creaks,’ and put it back together, and lo and behold, no more creaking! Try it! I observed the meter as reading a bit ‘low’ when compared to other meters? I know there is a given tolerance in the accuracy, but it was lower in values when checking batteries, checking the outlets (mains as y’all say ) etc. I need to find some fuses, diodes, and check it out further. I would be curious to know if the scotch tape thing worked for you? Cheers!
@@georgedavall9449 No I didn't try the Scotch tape hack. I'm alright with a little creaking, hehe. But since it worked out well for you, it's all good. If you think your F107 reads low, one thing you can do to check, is to have another AC averaging meter and compare their AC voltage readings. As you know it may not read the same as a true RMS meter, like a Fluke 117, for example. For DC, so long as its readings are within spec, it's not a defect. Just now I made a quick comparison using a lithium battery: Hioki DT4256 reads 3.813V, Fluke 107 reads 3.805V. Car battery: DT4256= 12.29V, Fluke 107=12.26V. For my use cases, perfectly acceptable results.
Thanks for the thorough review.
I appreciate your comments. Thanks for watching!
I don’t see range buttons can you change the range somehow manually? Thanks
There's no manual ranging from the Fluke 107, unfortunately. Auto range only. Thanks for watching!
Fluke are no longer made in the USA then? That's a shame.
I think most of their top shelf models, like the 87V, are still made in the US. My Fluke 115, F116, F117 & Fluke 324 were made in Singapore, my Fluke T6-1000 & this Fluke 107 were made in China. I believe that even if a Fluke is made outside of the US, so long as its genuine, it's still carries the brand's quality. Thanks for watching.
👍👍
Klein mm450 trms..its cheaper and better..
Thanks for watching. I've read good things about Klein test equipment.
BTW, new SUBscriber here, if You’ll have me! 😆
I appreciate your support, thank you!
@@ramschannelreviews You're Welcome! 😊
@@georgedavall9449 Good day! I thought you'd be interested in a case for a Fluke 107. I found this from amazon (not advertising them), for information purpose only.
th-cam.com/video/jdJ9qaR_tL4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xLGnrh_PYllkelZI
@@ramschannelreviews Thank You Sir! 🤝
@@georgedavall9449 You're welcome!