Does anyone have any thoughts on the Rigel 288 or the Fluke ESA 601, and the use of using a 1 amp earth continuity current test.

Many thanks

Both are nice bits of kit, Gerard. But, like everything else "medical" they are over-priced (in my humble opinion). The issue of 1 Amp testing has been threshed over many times on the forum in the past (spend an hour or two trawling through the archives when you feel so inclined). Which of the "standards" are you following, I wonder? It seems that, like ideas, they are everywhere, many and various. You just pluck out the one that suits you the best!

Gerard, we have recently purchased a Fluke ESA 601 for portable use and like Geoff I agree it is probably over priced, but so are most of its competitors. I found the 601 good as long as it is used with the Ansur software in an automated mode. Using it in manual/stand alone mode is a bit of a pain as you have to change rocker switches for different tests etc but all in all it has been ok

Many thanks for your comments, I will look back shortly for the views of 1 amp testing, but I am also interested in whether there is a view on the replacement interval of molded mains leads supplied with equipment. I have found that a mains lead will pass a 10 amp test and fail a 1 amp test.
Thanks again.

Hi Gerard
Please have alook at the link below which is an article we produced and is published in this site:

http://www.ebme.co.uk/arts/tpe/index.htm

This should answer why you fail leads at 1 amp rather than 10A
(the threshold seems to be around 8Amps as the graph will show you. This is the reason why the 288 sends a high pulse current prior to measuring at lower current. the 288 is the only tester on the market that provides this technology.

Any questions let me know.
thanks
john

Hi Gerard,

I disagree with speero, the fluke ESA601 is a fantastic standalone tester, it is easy to use, it has a comprehensive set of tests, don’t know how you would get around not having switches if you were buying a manual tester? (speero) don’t know why you would have bought this one if you wanted an automatic tester? Anyway yes its about the best manual tester out there I have seen, easy to use and full set of tests, I would compare it to the old rigel 244, great manual tester

Obiwan, we purchased the 601 as we do a lot of servicing in primary care health centres and it obviously wasn't practical to cart our QA-90 about. The point I was trying to make, and I admit I made it badly, was that if you're used to automated testers you can use the 601 with a laptop and Ansur software in an automated mode taking away the need to press buttons at certain times and possibly increasing the risk of user error. That said, I still think it is a good piece of kit and from an external servicing point of view I would be lost without it

Hi guys

In our department we have a wide selection of safety tester's, thus no-one can complain that they don't like a particular one.

We have the following: Rigel 233, 266, 277, Supernova and Primetest 220.

We recently had a look at the 601 and it looks ok. It is pretty easy to use, and looks pretty good for training staff with.

The 288 we have does take a little time to get your head around, but now that I've mastered it i do like it. My only complaint with this device is that it does seem to take a while to run through tests. It's not as quick as I think it could be.

But as I have said before, go for the dig out and dust down a 233. Its a relic but its a work horse! It performs tests, it displays the results, most things pass ok! Job done!

Regards

Alan M

Hi Alan
We can issue a firmware upgrade that speeds up the testing to more or less a par with the 277's

Send me a personal email with your firmware version and I can send you the upgrade (doen via your PC)

regards,

john

For clarification,

We've had it.

We are up to latest version. The point I was trying to make is that the 288 is not, and never will be as quick as a more manual click-clunk tester!

That said, it is great to take out into the field, as you can store all the data "on-board"

Regards

Alan M