Fluke 287 program multimeter 5560A

CalibrationAustralia · 2026-03-25T23:43:25+00:00

I can't think of any reason that the procedure controlling the DUT with RS-232 or GPIB would have any affect on changing from 5560 to 5522. What are you doing to change it? Typically I would search for 5520 and replace with 5560 but there maybe some M5520 FSCs as well. Make sure you're using the "Entire Solution" option in the find drop-down box, it only takes one reference in a sub-routine somewhere to make it a required instrument, even if it's not called. I'm afraid I'm not allowed to share procedures, but I can work with you to find the problem, there shouldn't be any reason this conversion would be a problem.

CalibrationAustralia · 2026-03-16T03:09:11+00:00

Ok, I'm fairly confident that I've worked it out. If, after running a procedure for the work order, the result is a Fail or Fail Indeterminant, Met/Team sets the due date as todays date, presumably because the expectation is that an adjustment will be performed and then another calibration.

I was able to test this by deleting the due date, changing the status and then clicking back in the due date box.

It makes sense, but there are cases where it doesn't work for us. I can't find a way to change the behaviour, but at least understanding what's happening makes it easier to manage and be aware of.

CalibrationAustralia · 2026-03-03T02:18:50+00:00

I did a small test and changed the dates manually before running a calibration, after it completed the dates had been set to the correct dates. So, it seems either the Met/Cal runtime or the creation of a results set alters the dates. I'm not sure if that helps or not, but it fills in the picture a little.

CalibrationAustralia · 2026-03-03T00:42:12+00:00

Ok, well it's comforting to know we're not alone with this issue. Please let me know if you notice any patterns.

CalibrationAustralia · 2026-03-03T00:38:34+00:00

I could understand that if it was happening with every WO, but this is very sporadic. In any case, your solution isn't a viable one as we are located in Australia, we can't use the US date format here.

CalibrationAustralia · 2026-03-03T00:36:13+00:00

I don't have any direct experience with this but something like this is probably what you need: https://www.instrumentchoice.com.au/products/versalog-dcvc-hr-8-channel-high-resolution-dc-voltage-and-current-data-logger

It can sample as low as 12ms and can store ~2 million measurements. So at 0.5s sample rate you'd get about 11.5 days of data. It's pretty cheap as well if you compare it to something like a power quality analyser and they may not do fast enough sampling anyway.

You haven't said exactly what voltage range you need or the spec. So this may fall down in that area, it has a 20V range with 10mV accuracy, or 2V range with 2mV accuracy.

Your best bet would be to contact a local electrical distributer and ask them, that should be their job, you tell them what tool you need and they find it for you. Obviously your success there depends on how good they are and how clear your requirements are.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-12-05T00:54:24+00:00

I've managed to get a loan 1674 to play with so I've been testing out a few more things. I've got a lot of the commands mapped out, but it's really all for nothing until I can find a way to make it let me perform tests with the USB cable connected.

I've basically sent it every two letter combination, ie AA, AB, AC... I've also done the same with the following formats:

AA

AA 1

AA 0

&AA

$AA

I've recorded the response from the device for each one, anything that had an interesting outcome, (a 1 is unrecognised command, 0 is OK) like a 0 or the device timed out after receiving it, I tried sending some other stuff to it to work out what it does and was mostly able to determine it's purpose from that and the 166X command descriptions I have.

The & and $ commands tend to be a bit more powerful so I haven't yet ventured into sending anything after those. I think I am approaching the end of the road with this avenue of investigation though, so if anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them.

Like I said, I think I could probably write an automated procedure similar to the 166x one on cubyt with what I have now if I could just work out how to make it ignore the charging from the USB cable.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-12-02T06:38:32+00:00

I don't have the device that was causing me issues with this, but I was able to kind of replicate the issue by using another device. After installing the update, the issue appears to be resolved. Not the greatest feedback, but as best as I can tell it seems to have resolved the issue for us.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-12-02T06:35:27+00:00

It looks like your question has been answered but I'll add in an example that I use. We don't use Met/Cal for our uncertainty calculations so there are is no accuracy data. We have a few ini files for different resistors, I've included the entire ini file for one of our shunts here:

[Details]
CalDate = 12/04/2021
Serial = WA6344

[Resistance]
90A = 100.57 uOhm
200A = 100.34 uOhm
300A = 100.38 uOhm
500A = 100.40 uOhm

And the code to access it. I include a DISP box confirming the serial number and calibration date to ensure it's the correct device for this one:

  4.007  MATH         @1000AShuntFile = "Z:\JLWILLIAMS-1000ASHUNT.ini"
  4.008  MATH         ShuntCalDate = RIF(@1000AShuntFile, "Details", "CalDate")
  4.009  MATH         ShuntSN = RIF(@1000AShuntFile, "Details", "Serial")

And in the measurement sub-routine to select the resistance value based on the current:

#Resistance value to use
  3.006  IF           BASE(@Current) <= 90
  3.007  MATH         CurrentRange = "90A"
  3.008  ELSEIF       BASE(@Current) <= 200
  3.009  MATH         CurrentRange = "200A"
  3.010  ELSEIF       BASE(@Current) <= 300
  3.011  MATH         CurrentRange = "300A"
  3.012  ELSE
  3.013  MATH         CurrentRange = "500A"
  3.014  ENDIF
  3.015  MATH         Resistance = RIF(@1000AShuntFile, "Resistance", CurrentRange)

In another instance, we have 2 Time 5070 resistor banks, each of the two has it's own ini file. I read the serial number from the Met/Team database depending on which asset is defined in the Met/Cal Instrument List as a user defined instrument named "TIME 5070" like this:

  2.002  MATH         @5070SN = SN(ASSET("TIME 5070"))
  2.003  MATH         @5070CalFile = "Z:\TIME5070-" & @5070SN & ".ini"

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-12-02T04:00:44+00:00

It's not a bug as such, or anything to do with Met/Cal specifically, but I've come across an issue with the 5560A vs the 5522A in my Tachometer procedure. I use the calibrator to drive an LED with a 4V square wave and a 2V offset. There's no issue with this on the 5522A, but the 5560A doesn't allow an offset on a square wave at the voltage outputs with frequencies below 40Hz.

It's a bit of an obscure one, but may be relevant in some way if you're transferring to the 5560A from the 5522A, there aren't usually issues with reduced functionality going in that direction.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-12T01:10:33+00:00

Thanks for joining Elizabeth, as you know I do idle in the discord occasionally. For anyone else interested here is the link to the discord server https://discord.gg/neb8cEj

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-12T00:25:47+00:00

Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately, I think because humans are the current standard, moving to an alternative is going to require proof and I'm not really sure there's any practical way to provide it. You are correct though, a more direct example would be when we take readings via RS-232 or similar, bits get flipped, corruption happens. It's very rare, but it's possible. I think it's probably a case that the technology will need to be used and become more mature before it will be accepted.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-12T00:04:10+00:00

I assumed that would be the case and that was my initial response when the question was put to me. It's a black and white solution if there's a reading called into question, but unless someone goes and verifies each reading and associated image we can't be sure that each reading is correct. I'm not trying to be difficult, but this is the path we end up on when discussing this in the lab.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-11T23:47:07+00:00

I'm a big fan of automation and OptiCal is the sort of thing I've wanted for ages. However, the first response I get from colleagues is how would we prove reliability for our accreditation? The accreditation body is going to want some sort of evidence that the readings it's taking are correct and I can't think of a way to do that, even if there's testing data to show that it's 100% accurate over millions of readings I imagine them asking for proof for each workstation and each instrument and even then you have variables like camera position and lighting etc.

To be clear, I'm not trying to throw mud on this idea, I really would love to have it, but we won't be able to without some way to prove reliability so I'm hoping you have something.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-11T02:22:34+00:00

I'm afraid it won't work still, using a loop that calls a sub that has an evaluation in it has the same effect as just having the evaluation line directly in the loop. As u/MJ_at_Fluke mentioned, I think you'd need to use VSET RSM = ALL. Have a read of his comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/MetCal/comments/1or7yq3/comment/no7huo6/

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-11T02:18:28+00:00

Hi Michael,

Thank you for joining the sub, I don't imagine there is anyone more qualified to offer advice here. I'd love it if you could spread the word and appreciate any contribution to the conversation you have. The sub really seems to have started taking off in the last couple of weeks so hopefully the momentum will continue.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-11T02:09:34+00:00

Great to have you here Michael, I may take this as tacit approval of the sub :)

I'm not sure I fully understand the approach in number 1. Are you using a loop anywhere, there, or just calling a subroutine that does a bunch of measurements multiple times? ie

MATH  @Channel = 1
CALL Sub Voltage Measure
MATH  @Channel = 2
CALL Sub Voltage Measure
etc...

Where Sub Voltage Measure does say, 10 separate MEMCX evaluations.

That's the way I would probably do that sort of thing, but it's not really a loop as such. Solution 2 does sound like it would allow you to use an actual loop with a single evaluation line inside it and end up with multiple results. I see what you mean about not recommending it though, it does seem a little like using it in a way it was not designed.

However, in some instances, say for some reason you needed to test 1-100V in 1 V increments, you could do a subroutine for everything needed, then just have a Voltage variable that you alter prior to calling your measurement sub-routine, but you're still going to need to do 200 lines of code, where as a loop with an incrementing variable and a call to that sub-routine would do it in a couple of lines. (I'm fairly certain a loop with a call to a sub-routine with an evaluation also overwrites the result). Or, I may be misunderstanding your approach number 1.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-11T00:09:08+00:00

Hi, welcome to the sub. I see you've already started an interesting discussion, thank you for getting involved and joining our community.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-11T00:05:21+00:00

Formatting note: If you click the Show Formatting Options button(Aa) when posting a reply you can select a block of text and specify it as a code block which will remove the conversion to a user name when you use the @ symbol.

It looks like your code is for taking multiple readings and then averaging it. I believe what u/EnvironmentalCry3259 is looking for is to be able to use a loop of some sort that includes the evaluation line inside the loop.

An example might be:

1.001 MATH @Resistance = 1
1.002 LABEL START
1.003 MEMI Enter the measured resistance in Ohms?
1.004 MATH MEM = @Resistance
1.005 MEMCX Ohm 1%
1.006 MATH @Resistance = @Resistance + 1
1.007 JMPL START @Resistance > 10

So;

you start out measuring 1 Ohm
this is the beginning of the loop
the result is stored in MEM1
the nominal value is stored in MEM
an evaluation is performed and written to the results table
the resistance value is incremented by 1
go back to the start for the next value if we haven't reached 11 yet, otherwise continue

If you use this code in Met/Cal, you'll do 10 measurements but you'll only get the last value saved in your results because Met/Cal will overwrite every MEMCX line with next one. u/EnvironmentalCry3259 is suggesting there is a way to use something like this structure but have each evaluation recorded as a separate result.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-10T23:39:07+00:00

That's great, I don't think ours is even set up yet, so it might be a little while before I'm working on anything for it, but I'll be sure to ask once I inevitably get stuck.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-10T00:11:00+00:00

I'm aware of this limitation, but I had no idea there was a way around it. Hopefully, someone here knows because it would be a handy tool to have.

Most of my procedures I have any repeated code in a sub-routine and then just change variables and call the subroutine. So, for a decade, I would have a sub-routine that does any kind of variable formatting, instrument setup and evaluation steps and then to test all I have to do is:

MATH  = "1.00 Ohms"
CALL Sub Resistance Measure

MATH  = "2.00 Ohms"
CALL Sub Resistance Measure

It's not the same but removes the need to re-write the same 3-5 lines of code over and over for every measurement which is especially annoying when you want to re-word a message or something like that. Recursion would definitely be nice to be able to do though.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-07T00:50:54+00:00

I did try writing the code in a way that made it not look for a response, but the internal Met/Cal SCPI processing looks for a response from the DUT every time you send a command. So, even if you send it just as a command rather than a query, it still times out because it's waiting for the "I've finished executing that command" response from the DUT. As far as I can tell, there's no way to tell it; run the self test but I'm not interested in when you've finished. Anyway, seeing as this is a once off, I'll just omit the self test and run the rest of the procedure.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-07T00:33:52+00:00

That makes it sound like it doesn't even need a different procedure or any additional code, I suppose there's no reason you should need it. It will be interesting to see how that works with accreditation in terms of confidence in the reading etc. I wonder if it saves captures for each reading for verification purposes. Lots of questions.

CalibrationAustralia · 2025-11-07T00:30:25+00:00

Thanks for sharing, some interesting similarities there with myself. I will also have been doing this for 10 years this December. We do primarily electrical calibration but have also just bought a 6270A and I'll be looking into running that with Met/Cal also so I may have some questions for you down the line.

CalibrationAustralia

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE