| |
Main
Date: 06 Jul 2006 00:17:06
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
If you Obsess about shot temperatures, you will probably ultimately buy a
Scace Device, and once you buy one of those you will need a datalogger to
record the temperatures obtained. There are 3 serious choices I'm aware of
for dataloggers; the Fluke 54 series, the Omega HH506RA, and Picotech TC-08.
The Picotech costs the most, has 8 channels (overkill for most), has no
screen for realtime viewing, and must be connected to a computer via USB
port to view shot temperatures. The Fluke and the Omega function both as
self-contained handhelds with LCD screens, and log the temps obtained in
memory. The Fluke 54-II is very well constructed, operates intuitively, but
costs twice as much as the Omega which is less well put together, somewhat
harder to use, but comes with very basic software which allows downloading
of the data obtained via either serial or USB (extra cost) ports. The fluke
has such software available for purchase at the absurd price of around $150,
making the Omega about 1/3rd the total cost of the Fluke if you want to
download data directly without having to manually type it in.
Don't ask me why, but I currently own both the Fluke 54-II and the Omega
HH506RA. Both are dual channel dataloggers, although only one channel is
needed for use with the Scace. Given the huge price differential between
these two units, I thought it would be useful to compare the two units in
actual usage, with the Scace, to determine whether they were equivalent.
The short answer is, they are.
The testbed was my modified Cimbali Junior D1 Rotary machine with PID and
delay timer induced 6 second 3.5bar preinfusion. The actual data obtained
is not important as we are comparing the performance of the dataloggers, not
the espresso machine. I arbitrarily decided to use a boiler temperature of
230.5F, which I've previously found to produce shot temperatures within the
range often recommended for espresso extraction. You will see in these
curves that the consecutive shot series produces a declining temperature
profile from shot to shot that stabilizes a couple of degrees lower than the
every 10 minute (or longer) random walk-up shots. If the goal was to
produce stable shot temperatures then one would want to extend the interval
between shots slightly. Once again, however, the idea was to evaluate the
dataloggers and not the espresso machine so we are looking at how similar
the shot temperature curves are with the two dataloggers, not comparing the
espresso machine's operation in two different scenarios.
First, here are consecutive shot series plots from the machine using both
dataloggers:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v429/kfoxfoie/230pt5FSevenShotSeries--Fluke.jpg
and
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v429/kfoxfoie/230pt5FSevenShotSeries--Omega.jpg
And here we have the walk-up shots series as captured by the two
dataloggers:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v429/kfoxfoie/230pt5FWalkUpShots--Fluke.jpg
and
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v429/kfoxfoie/230pt5FWalkUpShots--Omega.jpg
Having now used both dataloggers extensively, both with the Scace Device and
with my roaster, the Fluke wins hands down for usability and ability to work
with it as a handheld device, both while recording data and for review
afterwards. As for ease of transfer of data for further use, e.g. plotting
into a graph or entering into a spreadsheet or statistical analysis, stuff
like that, the Omega wins by virtue of the ability to download the data
without either paying $150 for some overpriced software or having to type
the data in manually.
The best bang for the buck is clearly in the Omega; the most fun datalogger
to use is the Fluke. Consult your bank account and make your choice :-)
ken
p.s. this is crossposted on home-barista.com; please respond in one thread
but not both
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 15:27:50
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
<snip >
> the absurd price of around $150
Fluke is a quality product. I have no doubt their software is robust.
We can't have it both ways. Omega software is free, but of marginal
utility.
As a software developer, I can tell you it takes a great deal of
effort to develop a robust product, especially when built for a house
of cards O/S.
Do
Specify
Code
Test
Loop Until Robust
rapidly eats up many tens of thousands of dollars.
$2700 for 68 pounds of scrap metal.
Absurd.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 10:34:44
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
"I- >Ian" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eg9qa256r3oqcnpbcddvoogsbt1qcjrcr9@4ax.com...
> <snip>
>> the absurd price of around $150
>
> Fluke is a quality product. I have no doubt their software is robust.
>
> We can't have it both ways. Omega software is free, but of marginal
> utility.
>
> As a software developer, I can tell you it takes a great deal of
> effort to develop a robust product, especially when built for a house
> of cards O/S.
> Do
> Specify
> Code
> Test
> Loop Until Robust
> rapidly eats up many tens of thousands of dollars.
>
The software I'm talking about needn't be complex; we are talking about
transferring a column of numbers from a handheld device to a PC. If someone
wanted or needed more complexity, say the downloading of associated
timestamps, then a more complext software package could be offered for sale.
Given the price of the Fluke, and the fact that they already have the IR
hardware installed in the unit, I don't think that this is too much to ask.
ken
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 18:07:25
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 10:34:44 -0600, "Ken Fox"
<morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com > wrote:
>"I->Ian" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:eg9qa256r3oqcnpbcddvoogsbt1qcjrcr9@4ax.com...
>> <snip>
>>> the absurd price of around $150
>>
>> Fluke is a quality product. I have no doubt their software is robust.
>>
>> We can't have it both ways. Omega software is free, but of marginal
>> utility.
>>
>> As a software developer, I can tell you it takes a great deal of
>> effort to develop a robust product, especially when built for a house
>> of cards O/S.
>> Do
>> Specify
>> Code
>> Test
>> Loop Until Robust
>> rapidly eats up many tens of thousands of dollars.
>>
>
>
>The software I'm talking about needn't be complex; we are talking about
>transferring a column of numbers from a handheld device to a PC. If someone
>wanted or needed more complexity, say the downloading of associated
>timestamps, then a more complext software package could be offered for sale.
>Given the price of the Fluke, and the fact that they already have the IR
>hardware installed in the unit, I don't think that this is too much to ask.
>
>ken
>
A column of numbers or War and Peace, it's only 0'a and 1's.
The sticky bit is handshaking between the software and the device to
ensure the data is valid and goes where it's wanted.
There are hundreds of COMM port boards available with as many drivers
in multiple revisions. Add the billion or so versions of Windoze
extant and it's a very sticky wicket.
- GPS units destroy the desktop, or the installation, because Windoze
decided the new device was a mouse and interpreted the NMEA data as
button clicks. It's not pretty.
- PCs refuse to boot Windoze because a COMM port is receiving J1939
data.
- ad nauseum...
Espresso is a cinch by comparison.
It's only coffee and water. ;-)
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 13:36:22
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
"I- >Ian" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:vajqa29pk6ndjvh79ab1a1dhj0ldrihum1@4ax.com...
> >>
>
> A column of numbers or War and Peace, it's only 0'a and 1's.
>
> The sticky bit is handshaking between the software and the device to
> ensure the data is valid and goes where it's wanted.
>
> There are hundreds of COMM port boards available with as many drivers
> in multiple revisions. Add the billion or so versions of Windoze
> extant and it's a very sticky wicket.
>
> - GPS units destroy the desktop, or the installation, because Windoze
> decided the new device was a mouse and interpreted the NMEA data as
> button clicks. It's not pretty.
>
> - PCs refuse to boot Windoze because a COMM port is receiving J1939
> data.
>
> - ad nauseum...
>
> Espresso is a cinch by comparison.
> It's only coffee and water. ;-)
that is Fluke's problem. I'm sure there are a whole lot of other products
out there that have similar compatibility problems with software, hardware,
and firmware. The fact is that Omega sells a unit for about $150 with
workable if archaic software. Fluke sells a unit for around $300 without
such software but with the hardware necessary for the software to function,
but they want an extra $150 for the software. So, their product, the 54-II,
costs THREE TIMES AS MUCH when equipped with the necessary software for data
transfer.
Do I think the Fluke is worth TWICE as much as the Omega, similarly
equipped? Probably. Do I think it is worth THREE TIMES as much? No. The
Sony Betamax was arguably a better video recording system than the VHS tape
system, but it failed miserably and was ultimately withdrawn from the
marketplace. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make a product
of a certain quality with a certain feature set that sells for a certain
price. If they can't do that, they will lose business if there are suitable
competitors, and in this case, for the price, the Omega is a suitable
competitor. If Fluke can't afford to write this software in a first world
country, they they will have to explore making it in India or elsewhere,
where it can be made for a price to make the overall price of the fully
equipped unit competitive. No one is forced to buy the Fluke, and I would
recommend to those who want the best deal for the best price to buy the
Omega. Even if the Omega dies and ends up in the trash after a couple of
years (it has a 13 month warranty and at least here in the USA, most credit
cards provide a doubling of such warranties to add at least one extra year),
one would have to replace it twice before it cost more than the Fluke. And
prices of this sort of stuff tend to go only one way, that is down, so there
isn't a whole lot of risk with that strategy.
ken
p.s. and no, I don't think that workers' jobs in the UK or the USA are
morally more important than workers' jobs in India or elsewhere, even though
I'd prefer the jobs to be over here.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 16:43:10
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
On 2006-07-06, Ken Fox <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Do I think the Fluke is worth TWICE as much as the Omega, similarly
> equipped? Probably. Do I think it is worth THREE TIMES as much? No.
Fluke is not your average Radio Shack hobbyist meter used maybe a
couple times per month. Fluke is heavy duty commercial grade
industrial environment equipment. It is designed and built to survive
daily use by the dumbest knotheads on the production floor. Day in,
day out, 3 shifts per day of being tossed on the bench or in a toolbox
and dropped on the floor between tosses. I know of no other company
that can do it like Fluke and it's why they cost big bucks.
Omega? I've never used one. Never run across one that still worked.
The only ones I've seen were long dead and discarded in junk drawers
and abandoned lockers. Our company had dozens of Omega catalogs. We
bought their stuff by the truckload. TCs, connectors, feedthroughs,
probes, etc. But, never the meters. Sure, you can get three Omegas
for the price of one Fluke, but when you need a meter right now, right
this very second, 3-for-1 dead meters aren't worth spit. After you've
replaced them a few times, you wise up and look elsewhere. If you, as
an occasional user, intend to baby your meter and tuck it in nice and
gentle after each use, I'm sure an Omega will serve you well.
As for pricing, if you haven't noticed, commercial items are not
priced like consumer items. Companies selling to other companies
price gouge on a scale that takes my breath away. I used to do some
buying for our dept and it always left me in shock the way ours and
other companies did business with each other. There's no such thing
as price point. I was once charged $110 for a 100K ohm potentiometer
I could get at Fry's for $8! Our contracted tool supplier sold us
electric screwdrivers at $325 each. I could get the exact same item,
rebranded, almost anywhere for $100. No, two times the cost for a
very good product is not what I would call expensive. In fact, it's a
deal.
I can't speak for the software. I don't write it and I seldom pay for
it. Have you tried looking for an open source alternative? I'll look
around.
BTW, just out of curiosity, why is it you can drop a wad on rotary
espresso machines, redundant data logging equipment, and $250
portafilters with nary a whimper, but get almost apoplectic over $150
for a software program? That's just the cost of having big fun.
Oh well, keep on loggin'. ;)
nb
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 16:11:27
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com > wrote in message
news:7vCdnVrlTZRzHjDZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> On 2006-07-06, Ken Fox <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do I think the Fluke is worth TWICE as much as the Omega, similarly
>> equipped? Probably. Do I think it is worth THREE TIMES as much? No.
>
> Fluke is not your average Radio Shack hobbyist meter used maybe a
> couple times per month. Fluke is heavy duty commercial grade
> industrial environment equipment. It is designed and built to survive
> daily use by the dumbest knotheads on the production floor. Day in,
> day out, 3 shifts per day of being tossed on the bench or in a toolbox
> and dropped on the floor between tosses. I know of no other company
> that can do it like Fluke and it's why they cost big bucks.
Omega is not a low end Radio Shack type company either. I'd be willing to
bet you that way in excess of 90% of their dataloggers are sold to
commercial accounts.
>
> Omega? I've never used one. Never run across one that still worked.
> The only ones I've seen were long dead and discarded in junk drawers
> and abandoned lockers. Our company had dozens of Omega catalogs. We
> bought their stuff by the truckload. TCs, connectors, feedthroughs,
> probes, etc. But, never the meters. Sure, you can get three Omegas
> for the price of one Fluke, but when you need a meter right now, right
> this very second, 3-for-1 dead meters aren't worth spit. After you've
> replaced them a few times, you wise up and look elsewhere. If you, as
> an occasional user, intend to baby your meter and tuck it in nice and
> gentle after each use, I'm sure an Omega will serve you well.
the dataloggers were discussed in the context of their use with the Scace
Device. This product is being sold to high end cafes, high end espresso
machine techs, and high end home enthusiasts. The kind of cafe that is
going to buy one is not going to hand the datalogger and Scace to the
janitor and ask that the toilet be calibrated. This stuff will presumably
be used by the cafe owner or the person who is responsible for QA, and I'd
hope that this person would be careful with it. Good espresso technicians
use other somewhat fragile equipment and I'd trust they would be careful
also, ditto the home enthusiast who has paid for this stuff with his own
personal funds. Hell, for that matter, the Scace Thermofilter itself
wouldn't take being dropped on a hard floor from 3 feet up well, either.
>
> As for pricing, if you haven't noticed, commercial items are not
> priced like consumer items.
see above. What consumer has need for a datalogger? Do think Omega sells
very many to "consumers?"
Companies selling to other companies
> price gouge on a scale that takes my breath away. I used to do some
> buying for our dept and it always left me in shock the way ours and
> other companies did business with each other. There's no such thing
> as price point. I was once charged $110 for a 100K ohm potentiometer
> I could get at Fry's for $8! Our contracted tool supplier sold us
> electric screwdrivers at $325 each. I could get the exact same item,
> rebranded, almost anywhere for $100. No, two times the cost for a
> very good product is not what I would call expensive. In fact, it's a
> deal.
>
> I can't speak for the software. I don't write it and I seldom pay for
> it. Have you tried looking for an open source alternative? I'll look
> around.
If you find something, I'd be delighted to hear about it.
>
> BTW, just out of curiosity, why is it you can drop a wad on rotary
> espresso machines, redundant data logging equipment, and $250
> portafilters with nary a whimper, but get almost apoplectic over $150
> for a software program? That's just the cost of having big fun.
>
> Oh well, keep on loggin'. ;)
>
> nb
>
I didn't pay $250 for my (one and only) Scace Device, but I've had so much
fun with it that it would be worth that.
ken
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 15:59:57
From: Espressopithecus (Java Man)
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
In article <eg9qa256r3oqcnpbcddvoogsbt1qcjrcr9@4ax.com >,
someone@nowhere.com says...
> $2700 for 68 pounds of scrap metal.
> Absurd.
>
To which espresso machine are you referring? ;-)
Rick
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 16:13:39
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:59:57 GMT, Espressopithecus (Java Man)
<rickk@letterectomyTELUS.net > wrote:
>In article <eg9qa256r3oqcnpbcddvoogsbt1qcjrcr9@4ax.com>,
>someone@nowhere.com says...
>> $2700 for 68 pounds of scrap metal.
>> Absurd.
>>
>To which espresso machine are you referring? ;-)
>
>Rick
I was referring to a Volvo ~:-P
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 05:52:12
From: jggall01
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
DavidMLewis wrote:
> Perhaps they've improved it. When I got mine, about a year ago, "very
> basic" is being extremely generous. Buggy almost, but not quite, to the
> point of unusability is more like it. It did such basic things as read
> the interval incorrectly. But if all you want to do is get the data
> onto the computer for further massaging, you're right that it's barely
> OK.
I have used the Omega for several months now. The software is pretty
archaic, and the RS-232 connection gets dropped frequently (it
automatically resets). But once you get the hang of it, you can
convert the data file into a usable XLS pretty quickly and get very
useful plots.
For the price, I think the HH506RA is a good instrument (emphasis on
"for the price"). I wouldn't hesitate to buy it again.
-- JGG
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 05:02:46
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
Tektronix also makes a very high end device but it is more than an
order of magnitude more expensive than the Fluke with software.
Partner drags his home from his lab now and again when he wants to dink
around with Miss Silvia. It offers no advantages over the others you
mentioned.
Partner advises that the Fluke software is readily available on the
internet, just snoop around for it. Not to suggest theft of
intellectual property, mind you...
And, of course, if you want a truly valid comparison of the Fluke and
the Omega you will need to take simultaneous measurements with both.
But that does not appear to have been your intent.
Interesting data. Thanks for sharing it.
Will
Ken Fox wrote:
> If you Obsess about shot temperatures, you will probably ultimately buy a
> Scace Device, and once you buy one of those you will need a datalogger to
> record the temperatures obtained. There are 3 serious choices I'm aware of
> for dataloggers; the Fluke 54 series, the Omega HH506RA, and Picotech TC-08.
> The Picotech costs the most, has 8 channels (overkill for most), has no
> screen for realtime viewing, and must be connected to a computer via USB
> port to view shot temperatures. The Fluke and the Omega function both as
> self-contained handhelds with LCD screens, and log the temps obtained in
> memory. The Fluke 54-II is very well constructed, operates intuitively, but
> costs twice as much as the Omega which is less well put together, somewhat
> harder to use, but comes with very basic software which allows downloading
> of the data obtained via either serial or USB (extra cost) ports. The fluke
> has such software available for purchase at the absurd price of around $150,
> making the Omega about 1/3rd the total cost of the Fluke if you want to
> download data directly without having to manually type it in.
>
> Don't ask me why, but I currently own both the Fluke 54-II and the Omega
> HH506RA. Both are dual channel dataloggers, although only one channel is
> needed for use with the Scace. Given the huge price differential between
> these two units, I thought it would be useful to compare the two units in
> actual usage, with the Scace, to determine whether they were equivalent.
> The short answer is, they are.
>
> The testbed was my modified Cimbali Junior D1 Rotary machine with PID and
> delay timer induced 6 second 3.5bar preinfusion. The actual data obtained
> is not important as we are comparing the performance of the dataloggers, not
> the espresso machine. I arbitrarily decided to use a boiler temperature of
> 230.5F, which I've previously found to produce shot temperatures within the
> range often recommended for espresso extraction. You will see in these
> curves that the consecutive shot series produces a declining temperature
> profile from shot to shot that stabilizes a couple of degrees lower than the
> every 10 minute (or longer) random walk-up shots. If the goal was to
> produce stable shot temperatures then one would want to extend the interval
> between shots slightly. Once again, however, the idea was to evaluate the
> dataloggers and not the espresso machine so we are looking at how similar
> the shot temperature curves are with the two dataloggers, not comparing the
> espresso machine's operation in two different scenarios.
>
> First, here are consecutive shot series plots from the machine using both
> dataloggers:
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v429/kfoxfoie/230pt5FSevenShotSeries--Fluke.jpg
>
> and
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v429/kfoxfoie/230pt5FSevenShotSeries--Omega.jpg
>
> And here we have the walk-up shots series as captured by the two
> dataloggers:
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v429/kfoxfoie/230pt5FWalkUpShots--Fluke.jpg
>
> and
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v429/kfoxfoie/230pt5FWalkUpShots--Omega.jpg
>
> Having now used both dataloggers extensively, both with the Scace Device and
> with my roaster, the Fluke wins hands down for usability and ability to work
> with it as a handheld device, both while recording data and for review
> afterwards. As for ease of transfer of data for further use, e.g. plotting
> into a graph or entering into a spreadsheet or statistical analysis, stuff
> like that, the Omega wins by virtue of the ability to download the data
> without either paying $150 for some overpriced software or having to type
> the data in manually.
>
> The best bang for the buck is clearly in the Omega; the most fun datalogger
> to use is the Fluke. Consult your bank account and make your choice :-)
>
> ken
>
> p.s. this is crossposted on home-barista.com; please respond in one thread
> but not both
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 08:59:42
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
<Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1152187365.068649.32560@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> And, of course, if you want a truly valid comparison of the Fluke and
> the Omega you will need to take simultaneous measurements with both.
> But that does not appear to have been your intent.
>
I did something similar which was to plug the Scace Device TC cable into the
Fluke, then the Omega, then the Fluke, etc., back and forth, when the PF was
in the machine but the machine was not spewing out water. At that point in
time the Scace Device will read around 180-185F in my machine's grouphead.
What I found was that the two dataloggers read the temperature as within a
couple of tenths of a degree F. I have done the same thing with the two
dataloggers attached to the fixed TC I have in my roaster when the roaster
was around 385F, and got similar results.
My impression from viewing the digital displays is that the Fluke is a tiny
bit less responsive, i.e. takes a second longer perhaps to reach the
temperature equilibrium that the Omega reaches more or less instantly. The
tradeoff is that the Omega picks up spurious readings occasionally, like
4000 degrees F, which come out when you download the data and need to be
removed. My impression is that the Fluke has better error control to
suppress those sorts of spurious readings, and the result is that it has a
slightly longer delay. Examination of the graphs obtained from the two
dataloggers over a period of several hours last evening does not support the
notion that the two dataloggers behave in a materially different manner.
Certainly for the purpose of calibrating espresso machine brew temperatures,
either are adequate, and will remain so until one breaks (my money is on the
Omega to break first, and not to be worth fixing when that happens).
ken
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 03:03:32
From: DavidMLewis
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
(snip)
> The Omega is less well put together, somewhat
> harder to use, but comes with very basic software which allows downloading
> of the data obtained via either serial or USB (extra cost) ports.
Hi Ken,
Perhaps they've improved it. When I got mine, about a year ago, "very
basic" is being extremely generous. Buggy almost, but not quite, to the
point of unusability is more like it. It did such basic things as read
the interval incorrectly. But if all you want to do is get the data
onto the computer for further massaging, you're right that it's barely
OK.
Best,
David
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 01:41:08
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Fluke vs. Omega Dataloggers for use with Scace Device
|
On 2006-07-06, Ken Fox <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com > wrote:
> to use is the Fluke. Consult your bank account and make your choice :-)
You are paying for one other thing when you choose Fluke. Robustness
and reliability. When other meters have long ago failed or gone belly
up, Flukes are still going. They are almost bulletproof. As for the
software, I can't imagine any excuse for it.
nb
|
|
