Modifying Digital Multi Meter (DMM) Leads

25 posts / 0 new
Last post
benckie
benckie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 7 months ago
Joined: 07/04/2011 - 08:36
Posts: 1513
Location: Western Austraila
Modifying Digital Multi Meter (DMM) Leads

one thing i dont get is people modifying digital multi meter (dmm) leads i have a cheap dmm and a fluke dmm they read very very close to each other i belive the fluke leads are calibrated with the unit (and should not be changed).

i also belive the cheap dmm is to, i have used shorter larger dia leads with less resistance it gives higher current draw test on the cheap meter but when compared to my fluke dmm and a family friends new fluke the readings are much higher more impressive but to me they are fase as its messed with the calibration of the meter and the meter is giving fase high readings i trust the flukes readings over a cheaper meter with the leads change.

i did this test as i have seen people of here recomending people to modifying there dmm leads when they have a torch or a battery with low results or when they buy a new cheap dmm, but if they have not got a good ddm to compare the results to how do they know the dmm is under reading or maybe not even over reading before the modifying the leads and how do they know its not fase reading after the modifications, how do they know the dmm leads are not calibrated for the dmm and are with the dmm tolernces before it left the factory as one would think they are with in a small percentage.

so how many reveiws and how many current draw tests have been posted with modifed dmm,s that could well be inacurate are people chasing the fase high.

PilotPTK
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:53
Posts: 1736
Location: Michigan, USA

Most DMMs measure current by passing it through a small value (low milliOhm) resistor, known as a shunt.  They measure the voltage drop accross the resistor to determine the current flow (Ohms Law).

For current measurement, the leads are irrelevant to the measurement.  The only difference thicker wires will make is that they may ALLOW more current to flow and be measured.

Most meters that I've played with (From 10 dollar specials to the 50,000 count Hioki that I have at work) are actually pretty good/accurate at measuring current since it's such a simple measurement.  They're really just measuring voltage(drop) and converting it to current.

 

PPtk

I am currently extremely busy with work. Please do not expect a response from me quickly. I will be dropping in as time permits, but the amount of time I can dedicate to responding to topics and PMs is very limited.

benckie
benckie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 7 months ago
Joined: 07/04/2011 - 08:36
Posts: 1513
Location: Western Austraila

larger shorter leads will give less resistance and have less voltage drop but if you have 3 multi meters one 10 buck special and 2 flukes reading all the same but you mod the leads of the 10 buck special and now its reading higher then then the two flukes would you say the fluke,s are not reading correctly and the 10 buck special with modded leads is reading true.

PilotPTK
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:53
Posts: 1736
Location: Michigan, USA

I would say they were all reading true.  It's just that with the larger leads, more current is able to flow, and the meter reports that.

I am currently extremely busy with work. Please do not expect a response from me quickly. I will be dropping in as time permits, but the amount of time I can dedicate to responding to topics and PMs is very limited.

benckie
benckie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 7 months ago
Joined: 07/04/2011 - 08:36
Posts: 1513
Location: Western Austraila

e.g so you measure 3 amp,s to the driver with moded leads 2.5 amps with the two flukes but the wires from the driver to the emiiter is less then 1mm thick so its all irreverent lols i feel the leads should not be modified its just add's more variation as it comes down to what wire is used and then lenght, there is enough variation between users, batteries, chargers and the torchs.

PilotPTK
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:53
Posts: 1736
Location: Michigan, USA

It does matter.  When you connect a meter, you're adding resistance (voltage drop) to the circuit.  The battery tube is so close to zero-ohms that it's barely worth mentioning.  The thickest wire you can use for leads will change the circuit the least from it's normal operating model (battery connected directly to tube), so that's the reading that most closely mimics the circuit in normal operation.

Taken another way, No matter how thick the leads are, they are always going to be worse for the circuit than the circuit usually is.  This means, even under the best circumstances and with the thickest leads, you're still going to read a little LOW compared to what the real current is with no meter in circuit.

The highest reading you can get, using the thickest leads you can find, will be the best measurement of the real operation of the light.

 

PPtk

I am currently extremely busy with work. Please do not expect a response from me quickly. I will be dropping in as time permits, but the amount of time I can dedicate to responding to topics and PMs is very limited.

PilotPTK
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:53
Posts: 1736
Location: Michigan, USA

I should add, this discussion really only pertains to direct drive or linear regulated applications.  If there is a buck, boost, or buck-boost regulator between the battery and the emitter or emitters, all bets are off.  In fact, smaller leads can end up showing higher currents.

This happens because the leads and the meter drop voltage from the battery, before the regulator.  The regulator will do everything it can to generate the desired current at the emitter.  In doing so, since it's lacking in voltage, it will make up for the lost power with amps.  Power(watts) = Volts * Amps

PPtk

I am currently extremely busy with work. Please do not expect a response from me quickly. I will be dropping in as time permits, but the amount of time I can dedicate to responding to topics and PMs is very limited.

benckie
benckie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 7 months ago
Joined: 07/04/2011 - 08:36
Posts: 1513
Location: Western Austraila

so you belive there is not link between the shunt or resister for measuring amps to the standard leads of the DDM with calibration of the unit its self.

i always thought there was, meaning the shunt chosen was to suit the lead lenght, diameter and has to do with the calibration of the unit.

if we all modifyed our DMM leads to get the highest readings it would once again depend of what type of wire the diameter of the wire and the lengh used thats a big variable, where most cheap to top self DMM,s have a small % of + or - error

 

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 42 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6980
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

benckie wrote:
one thing i dont get is people modifying digital multi meter (dmm) leads i have a cheap dmm and a fluke dmm they read very very close to each other i belive the fluke leads are calibrated with the unit (and should not be changed).

 

The actual current measuring of the DMM is completely independent of the leads used.

BUT the actual current is not, especially when working at low voltages. Both DMM and leads has some resistance and that resistance will drop some voltage. This voltage drop is usual in the range 0.1 to 0.5 volt, but can be as high as a few volts on some DMM's.

For most flashlights the current draw will depend on the voltage, but how it changes with voltage depends on the driver. Some drivers will increase current at lower voltage, other will decrease current.

Here is an current draw curve for a lights:

If I uses a LiIon battery with 4 volt and no DMM it will draw 3 ampere, but if I uses a meter with thin probe leads and looses 0.5 volt in the DMM+leads it will draw 3.6 ampere (Because the actual voltage is down to 3.5 volt).

Using batteries as source does also have its problems, there are not many LiIon batteries that can sustain 4 volt at 3 ampere draw, somewhere between 3.8 and 3.9 volt is much more realistic.

 

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

viffer750
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 8 months ago
Joined: 08/15/2011 - 10:29
Posts: 514
Location: Hungary

You get the right current when the resistance of the tailcap (switch) and the DMM is the same, and the DMM is accurate of course. If you use short and thick leads, sometimes you will measure much more current than the real ( when the tailcap is in the place), because the resistance of the tailcap is higher than the DMM+leads.
Vice versa if the resistance of the DMM is higher than the tailcap you will measure lower values.

(except above mentioned buck-boost circuits)

unique engrish language... Smile

 

agedbriar
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/09/2011 - 18:11
Posts: 642
Location: Slovenia, EU

benckie wrote:

so you belive there is not link between the shunt or resister for measuring amps to the standard leads of the DDM with calibration of the unit its self.

There cannot be, as the leads are interchangeable and the DMMs are designed with this interchangeability in mind. In fact, you can buy different leads with different connectors and attachments/probes to suit different applications and professionals normally keep quite a selection of them.

Thus, the thickest and shortest leads will obstruct the current the least, with any DMM. To what degree such a reading represents the true current value we are seeking (the current flowing in normal use) will depend on how much the tailcap resistance differs from the compound resistance (DMM shunt + leads) introduced by the metering setup, as said above. I didn't do a reasearch, but I believe that unless you have a crap or worn-out (long overloaded) clickie and oxidized threads, the tailcap resistance should be lower than the shunt resistance in most affordable DMMs, so you can expect a higher in-use current than the value displayed by the DMM (battery obliging, that is).

 

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

agedbriar wrote:
There cannot be, as the leads are interchangeable and the DMMs are designed with this interchangeability in mind. In fact, you can buy different leads with different connectors and attachments/probes to suit different applications and professionals normally keep quite a selection of them.

Thus, the thickest and shortest leads will obstruct the current the least, with any DMM. To what degree such a reading represents the true current value we are seeking (the current flowing in normal use) will depend on how much the tailcap resistance differs from the compound resistance (DMM shunt + leads) introduced by the metering setup, as said above. I didn't do a reasearch, but I believe that unless you have a crap or worn-out (long overloaded) clickie and oxidized threads, the tailcap resistance should be lower than the shunt resistance in most affordable DMMs, so you can expect a higher in-use current than the value displayed by the DMM (battery obliging, that is).

 

I totally agree with everything except the last sentence. I think you are underestimating the resistance of the tailcap/switch. Maybe I'm wrong.

I still say that if you take a 4x7135 or 8x7135 driven light and use it with a test the current on a fully charged healthy 18650 you can see how close your measurements are to the 1.4A or 2.8A they should be drawing. The only thing I don't know is how much variation there is between those drivers.

agedbriar
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/09/2011 - 18:11
Posts: 642
Location: Slovenia, EU

With a regulating driver the voltage drop on the shunt and leads is much less of an issue since the driver will respond by regulating the current, as it does when the battery has lost some of its charge.

The current measuring problem pertains mainly to direct drives. (I didn't stress that point since Viffer750 had done that already.)

It would be interesting to measure the tailcap resistance on a few samples. I have thought of doing that but I have no idea of how to properly include the tailcap/tube thread contact in the measurement. Omitting the latter, it's still guessing. Besides, it varies a lot (relatively) with time and maintainance degree, I suppose.

Hmm, probing at the other end of the mounted tube?

viffer750
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 8 months ago
Joined: 08/15/2011 - 10:29
Posts: 514
Location: Hungary

I measured some of my tailcaps, and got 40-100mohm, some weaker were about 150mohm.

Resistance of my multimeters with stock leads: 60mohm, and the other 115mohm, 
but dmm resistance decreased to 20-25mohm with thick and short leads. You can imagine the difference, when you measure with the modified dmm, and the light has a 100mohm tailcap...
Okay, some current measurments on my C8 xml:
 dmm  25mohm -> 3.4A
          60mohm -> 3.1A
         115mohm  ->2.6A
the "real" current is about 3.2A because the tailcap resistance is 45mohm.

wf-501 mc-e (tailcap 55mohm):
 dmm   25mohm -> 3.25A
           60mohm -> 2.9A
          115mohm  ->2.5A
 the "real" current is about 2.9A

modified mte ssc p7 "xm-l"  (tailcap 95mohm):
dmm   25mohm -> 4.1A
          60mohm -> 3.6A
         115mohm  ->3.1A
 the "real" current is about 3.2A

 

 

unique engrish language... Smile

 

agedbriar
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/09/2011 - 18:11
Posts: 642
Location: Slovenia, EU

My two Voltcraft DMMs have 62 mohm (20A range) and 260 mohm (10A range), including 0.5m 2.5mm2 (13-14AWG) leads.

The 260 mohm one is one of their latest models, cheaper, but still 50 EUR.

2100
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 05/28/2011 - 10:28
Posts: 4512
Location: SINGAPORE

agedbriar wrote:

It would be interesting to measure the tailcap resistance on a few samples. I have thought of doing that but I have no idea of how to properly include the tailcap/tube thread contact in the measurement. Omitting the latter, it's still guessing. Besides, it varies a lot (relatively) with time and maintainance degree, I suppose.

Hmm, probing at the other end of the mounted tube?

Actually since the can of worms has been opened, yes i agree.  Sometimes the dirty lube in the threads can cause a limit on how much current can be passed.  I experienced that with my DRY and some of my lights.

I'll try to measure with and without tailcap of some of my lights.  For the additional wire needed, i will use 2 x 14awg so that the additional resistance is negligible.

But still, the most useful data i get is from the lux meter.

Southern Aurora
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Joined: 08/08/2011 - 20:33
Posts: 51
Location: AU
PilotPTK wrote:

It does matter.  When you connect a meter, you're adding resistance (voltage drop) to the circuit.  The battery tube is so close to zero-ohms that it's barely worth mentioning.  The thickest wire you can use for leads will change the circuit the least from it's normal operating model (battery connected directly to tube), so that's the reading that most closely mimics the circuit in normal operation.

Taken another way, No matter how thick the leads are, they are always going to be worse for the circuit than the circuit usually is.  This means, even under the best circumstances and with the thickest leads, you're still going to read a little LOW compared to what the real current is with no meter in circuit.

The highest reading you can get, using the thickest leads you can find, will be the best measurement of the real operation of the light.

 

PPtk

Nice to see the truth shine through all the misinformation.

Budget Ain't Always Budget!

2100
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 05/28/2011 - 10:28
Posts: 4512
Location: SINGAPORE

I did my measurements.

DRY (I measured 2 out of the 4), with 90cm leads = 3.64A   With 110cm leads = 3.33A.  Both leads are from Uni-T.

With short leads and 2 x 14awg and through tailcap = 4.53A and 4.61A. Short leads provided by Uni-T (UT-58E)

With short leads and no tailcap = 4.73A  (UT-58E)

 

With DRY in high mode,

Uni-T short leads and 2 x 14awg and through Balder BD-4 tailcap = 2.15A   (in reality, this is only doing about 1.45A on the BD-4)

Uni-T short leads and 2 x 14awg and through Yezl M7X tailcap = 2.01A

Uni-T short leads and 2 x 14awg and through Trustfire TF-3T6 tailcap = 2.03A

Uni-T short leads and 2 x 14awg and through Solarforce L2 tailcap = 2.02A

With Uni-T short leads and no tailcap = 2.23A

Uni-T 90cm leads = 1.76A

Uni-T 110cm leads = 1.58A

 

 

 

 

agedbriar
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/09/2011 - 18:11
Posts: 642
Location: Slovenia, EU

Interesting approach - using the same light with random tailcaps. Cool

Enlightening! ... (how becoming to this board)

2100
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 05/28/2011 - 10:28
Posts: 4512
Location: SINGAPORE

agedbriar wrote:

Interesting approach - using the same light with random tailcaps. Cool

Enlightening! ... (how becoming to this board)

The DRY tailcap switches never malfunctioned even though passing 4A or even slightly above that regularly. I have switched off and on quite a few times already. Anyway I have a number of them as spares, they are rated 1.5A.  Tough little chinese budget things.

viffer750
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 8 months ago
Joined: 08/15/2011 - 10:29
Posts: 514
Location: Hungary

What kind of switch is this?

maybe this

1 It is a solid switch, measured resistance only 5 mohm.
By the way as I see, the resistance of the tailcap depends mostly on the pressure spring.
 

unique engrish language... Smile

 

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 42 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6980
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Some resistance measurements, all done with a 4 terminal ohm meter (Resolution 0.01 mohm):

 

JetBeam M2S Tailcap70 mohm
ThruNite TN11 Tailcap85 mohm
4Sevens Quark X AA2 Tailcap82 mohm
Fluke 289 10A range33 mohm
Fluke 189 10A range55 mohm
Fluke 179 10A range35 mohm
Vichy VC99 20A range48 mohm
Best DT9205A 20A range18 mohm
Fluke test lead (x1)38 mohm
Fluke test lead (x1)51 mohm
No name test lead (x1)257 mohm
No name 10A test lead (x1)22 mohm

Both test leads and DMM's has connections included in the resistance (one for lead, two for DMM).

The Best DMM is unfused, that is the reason for the low resistance.

Remember when using test leads, that the resistance is included twice, one for each lead.


Doing a test with 10A current and measuring the voltage from test probe tip to test probe tip:

 

 10ATot. Res
Fluke 289 + Fluke test lead1.02 volt102 mohm
Fluke 189 + Fluke test lead1.16 volt116 mohm
Fluke 179 + Fluke test lead0.97 volt97 mohm
Best DT9205A + No name 10 test lead0.59 volt59 mohm

The connection resistance from test probe tip to current source is not included.

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

agedbriar
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/09/2011 - 18:11
Posts: 642
Location: Slovenia, EU

It seems I've been underestimating the tailcap resistance indeed.

And the above values don't include the thread connection, do they?

CheapThrills
CheapThrills's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 30 min ago
Joined: 07/02/2011 - 10:45
Posts: 3566
Location: Suomi

2100 wrote:

agedbriar wrote:

It would be interesting to measure the tailcap resistance on a few samples. I have thought of doing that but I have no idea of how to properly include the tailcap/tube thread contact in the measurement. Omitting the latter, it's still guessing. Besides, it varies a lot (relatively) with time and maintainance degree, I suppose.

Hmm, probing at the other end of the mounted tube?

Actually since the can of worms has been opened, yes i agree.  Sometimes the dirty lube in the threads can cause a limit on how much current can be passed.  I experienced that with my DRY and some of my lights.

 

 

SC51 is IMO very prone to this.

You can actually notice from the lack of lumens when it does this.

I use Nyogel. Maybe I should run it dry from lubes.

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 42 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6980
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

agedbriar wrote:

It seems I've been underestimating the tailcap resistance indeed.

And the above values don't include the thread connection, do they?

 

My measurements are without any connection resistance. Two of the tailcaps has visible springs and I did connect as close to the tip as I could.

 

Tailcap to body resistance will be very low if the metal is clean. A LD01 SS body to head connections is below 1 mohm (This is a SS to SS connection, not aluminium).

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/