IET DE-5000 LCR Meter in UK

[jpb]

I've just received a quote from IET for their DE-5000 (I asked if it was available in the UK).
The meter costs $335 but the postage is $140 so the total is $475 and of course there would be VAT (import duty) to pay on top making it $570 or £376. This makes it a lot more than
the Agilent U1733C which is £284 from Conrad.

Is there a European distributer? I would have thought that IET would have told me in their e-mail if there was, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

The Agilent meter is not 4 wire and also applies 0.7Vrms so is not really suitable for in-circuit ESR tests.

Other ESR meters discussed on these forums all seem to have issues (like dodgy power supplies) or else are even more expensive.

Any recommendations from UK/Europe based people?

[EEVblog]

I'd go for the Agilent, and get a separate cheap ESR meter.

Dave.

[mzzj]

I just ordered this http://www.reichelt.de/Induktivitaets-Kapazitaetsmesser/PEAKTECH-2170/3/index.html?;ACTION=3;LA=446;ARTICLE=113035;GROUPID=4060;artnr=PEAKTECH+2170;SID=13USNyKX8AAAIAAFVJPZYbc2f1faa3fc35d8d1c4071db95628b4c

Based on the same chipset as IET and has 4-wire measurement.
Can't comment yet about quality. Hopefully tomorrow I will get my hands on this meter.

[Wytnucls]

You should also consider the cheaper CEM DT-9935, if you can live without data-logging and 4-wire resistance measurement.
4-wire measurement on a 200 Ohm range is a bit of a joke anyway. Rather get a microOhm meter, if this is important to you.
It has the Cyrustek chipset, but quoted accuracy is not as good as the DE-5000, but in most cases, it will get the job done.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CEM-9935-Professional-LCR-Digital-Multimeter-Safety-10-100KHz-L-C-R-D-Q-/300847805113?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item460bed32b9

[mikeselectricstuff]

I just got one of these :
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Handheld-LCR-L-C-R-Meter-Tester-Touch-Screen-LCD-mini-USB-10KHz-10K-Hz-0-20-/130677788621?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e6d00cfcd
Made by
http://www.applent.com/


first impressions - build quality good (but mains adapter marginal), UI a but messy as you'd expect from China.
Will do a review when I get a chance.
 It is 4-wire.

[jpb]

A lot of people seem to be acquiring new LCR meters - it will be very interesting to get some feedback when you've had a chance to use them.

[BravoV]

Although not all, just wonder why a lot of LCR meter designers didn't think of or put in the 100Khz measurement range ?

C'mon, its not like they never read capacitor's datasheet that today mostly are specified tested at 100Khz as standard right ?

Is there any big technical challenges or a brick wall that might made these type of design cost a lot more once reaching 100Khz threshold ? 

[Wytnucls]

Actually, most electrolytic and tantalum caps are rated at 120Hz on datasheets. DF (tan d) is also quoted at 120Hz.
1KHz, 10KHz and 100KHz frequencies are normally used to quote the dissipation factor (tan d) for film capacitors.
Ceramic caps parameters are quoted at a frequency of 1KHz.
While on the subject, I don't understand why people are so fixated on ESR. I would argue that D (Dissipation factor) is the better parameter to use, as it is usually quoted on datasheets, not ESR. LCR meters normally give D as the default value on the secondary display, with the measured capacitance on primary.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Although not all, just wonder why a lot of LCR meter designers didn't think of or put in the 100Khz measurement range ?

C'mon, its not like they never read capacitor's datasheet that today mostly are specified tested at 100Khz as standard right ?

Is there any big technical challenges or a brick wall that might made these type of design cost a lot more once reaching 100Khz threshold ? 

There is a 100K version of the Applent, but much more expensive
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Handheld-LCR-L-C-R-Meter-Tester-Touch-Screen-LCD-mini-USB-100KHz-100K-Hz-0-20-/130677789098?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e6d00d1aa

[robrenz]

DE-5000 is 100kHz

[kripton2035]

I've just received a quote from IET for their DE-5000 (I asked if it was available in the UK).
The meter costs $335 but the postage is $140 so the total is $475 and of course there would be VAT (import duty) to pay on top making it $570 or £376. This makes it a lot more than
Any recommendations from UK/Europe based people?

ask them if they do send via USPS it will be cheaper, and who knows sometimes (often) with usps you dont get VAT ...

[chickenHeadKnob]

While on the subject, I don't understand why people are so fixated on ESR. I would argue that D (Dissipation factor) is the better parameter to use, as it is usually quoted on datasheets, not ESR. LCR meters normally give D as the default value on the secondary display, with the measured capacitance on primary.

I don't think most  that want an ESR meter have a fetish for ESR, it just that there are so many failing crap caps out there, some which don't exhibit obvious signs of failure. So they want in circuit testing. A kind of magic wand which will point out the baddies. Wether an ESR meter can actually do this effectively could be the subject of a whole 'nother thread.

[c4757p]

I don't really think ESR vs D matters for most people. ESR = D X_C. My LCR bridge has two scales on the dissipation factor dial: D and D/(2 pi f). Just divide by C to get ESR. I really couldn't care less which one a meter gives as long as it gives one of them.

The only time I can see it actually being important is if you repair a huge number of power supplies - then you would want something with a low enough test voltage for in-circuit tests. But do most of us really spend that much time repairing power supplies? For the rare times I do it, I can desolder one side of the cap.

[BravoV]

Wytnucls, as c4757p summed up, these are just two sides of the same coin.

My question is just simply why they didn't include 100 KHz while designing the circuit or chipset at the 1st place ? Is that because of technical constraint that might inflict higher cost ?

The 100Khz standard is pretty aged in the industry, especially at power cap datasheets.

[EEVblog]

I just got one of these :
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Handheld-LCR-L-C-R-Meter-Tester-Touch-Screen-LCD-mini-USB-10KHz-10K-Hz-0-20-/130677788621?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e6d00cfcd
Made by
http://www.applent.com/

OMG, touch screen, why? 

Dave.

[c4757p]

Because shiny.

[grenert]

For me, I care about ESR when I am putting together a (linear) power supply.  I don't care what the absolute ESR of a cap is, but if one cap measures lower ESR than another, I know it will be better at reducing ripple and will likely last longer.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I just got one of these :
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Handheld-LCR-L-C-R-Meter-Tester-Touch-Screen-LCD-mini-USB-10KHz-10K-Hz-0-20-/130677788621?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e6d00cfcd
Made by
http://www.applent.com/

OMG, touch screen, why? 

Dave.

Pretty pointless, but you can just ignore it. On an LCR meter I sort of just want 3 buttons marked L C and R.
The UI is a mess - despite all the buttons, and the touchscreen, it still takes several presses to get to what you want.

[BravoV]

Mike, I assume you're going to make a teardown video on this right ?

[mikeselectricstuff]

Mike, I assume you're going to make a teardown video on this right ?

Obviously. Bit busy atm though. Insides look pretty OK

[BravoV]

Mike, I assume you're going to make a teardown video on this right ?

Obviously. Bit busy atm though. Insides look pretty OK

Thanks, thats enough for me to hear, looking forward to watch your video. 

And strangely, I was dreaming somehow you will make a miraculous discovery to hack it easily into 100Khz capable unit and better news, that the firmware hacking is so easy so you can tweak the damn UI you've been cursing.    .. j/k

[Wytnucls]

Wytnucls, as c4757p summed up, these are just two sides of the same coin.

My question is just simply why they didn't include 100 KHz while designing the circuit or chipset at the 1st place ? Is that because of technical constraint that might inflict higher cost ?

The 100Khz standard is pretty aged in the industry, especially at power cap datasheets.

There are not 2 sides of the same coin. D is a direct indication of the healthy state of the capacitor. ESR doesn't tell you anything by itself. You have to consult approximate reference tables to find out if the cap is perhaps out of specs. Alternatively, you'd have to work out D anyway, to crosscheck with the published datasheet (D= ESR x 2 x Pi x f x C). Cumbersome calculations if many different caps have to be checked in turn.
In my experience, a good indication to watch for is that any electrolytic cap with a D of 25% or more (0.25) needs to be replaced, especially if the initial rated capacitance has dropped by more than 25%.
If the caps are rated low ESR, a D of more than 10% (0.10) would indicate a failed or failing capacitor.
A capacitance meter with just 2 frequencies would suffice for most testing. All caps datasheets will reference values for either 120Hz or 1 KHz testing frequencies. There are special circumstances though, where testing caps at a higher frequency would be beneficial.

[robrenz]

If you plan to measure very low inductances with 0.001µH resolution on a 20µH range some meters only give you that at 100kHz.

[PA4TIM]

Wytnucles, finaly some one who understands, i totally agree 
I have several bridges, always use D too.

On topic, i bought a IET DE-5000 recently. It has 100 KHz and gives D, phase, ESR and you can measure Rac that gives you ESR too because it measures Rs and not Z
100 KHz, see Robrenz reaction

[robrenz]

Everybody already knows I am a DE-5000 fanboy    From what I have seen on the forum so far my enthusiasm is justified %-B 

[Wytnucls]

All the meters based on the Cyrustek chipset seem to have decent specs. The more expensive ones have tighter tolerances and extra features like datalogging, 4 wire measurement and external power supply.

[BravoV]

All the meters based on the Cyrustek chipset seem to have decent specs. The more expensive ones have tighter tolerances and extra features like datalogging, 4 wire measurement and external power supply.

Is this one also using the Cyrustek chip ?

[Wytnucls]

if you are referring to the 50,000 count LCR meter Mike just acquired, the answer is no.
The test voltage on this one is quite high at 1.0V (0.6V on the Cyrustek ones), so probably not suitable for in circuit testing.

[mzzj]

I just ordered this http://www.reichelt.de/Induktivitaets-Kapazitaetsmesser/PEAKTECH-2170/3/index.html?;ACTION=3;LA=446;ARTICLE=113035;GROUPID=4060;artnr=PEAKTECH+2170;SID=13USNyKX8AAAIAAFVJPZYbc2f1faa3fc35d8d1c4071db95628b4c

Based on the same chipset as IET and has 4-wire measurement.
Can't comment yet about quality. Hopefully tomorrow I will get my hands on this meter.

+ has 4-wire measurement
+ 100 khz measurement like most? Cyrystek -based meters
+ EU- seller, no hassle with customs and reasonable postage fee of 19 euros.
+ Comes with kelvin clips

-Slowish measurement rate, I guess same applies to similar meters like IET-5000 as well.
-Crappy buttons requiring extra effort to press
-UI requires plentiful button presses to get series resistance.
-Build quality borderline acceptable.
-dual display somewhat useless with big electrolytic capacitors, 10000 µF capacitor has to be measured with 100hz test frequency and then you got only 0.1 Ohms resolution in dual-display ESR-reading. Useless.  Switching to series resistance mode allows measurement with higher frequency and better resolution.
-Kelvin clip wires are rather stiff, I am planning  to replace these with more flexible coaxial or twinaxial cable and Mueller BU-75 kelvin clips http://www.muellerelectric.com/kelvin_clips.html
- No AC-adapter included

Question for IET DE-5000 users: What sort of results you get from a 1uf or 2uF  polypropylene or polyester capacitors with different measurement frequencies? Preferably pulse rated polypropylene cap..

[PA4TIM]

What do you mean ?
I just grabbed a hand full of MKT, MKP, MMK ect from the caps drawer, measured them all in Cs, D and ESR ( not that that is an interesting number but its the buzz word today ;-) ) on 100, 120, 1K, 10K and 100K.
Results are like I would expect them. A ( very) small decrease in capacitance due to ESL and a rise in D with frequency. ESR high at 100Hz and decreasing with frequency.
I have not compared these to my vna or GR1620 but when I bought the meter I tested that with my test and standard caps and it is very accurate. Better as the specs tell.

[Wytnucls]

Here is the UNI-T version, also with Cyrustek chipset: UT-612

Sells for about 150$. 9V battery and doesn't have 4-wire measurement capability either. It does actually, but only up to the input jacks. Kelvin test leads won't work with this meter. It has data logging and external power supply through mini USB.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/UNIT-UT612-Multipurpose-LCR-Meter-Inductance-Capacitance-LCRDCRQDESR-/310546495592

[robrenz]

Here is a short video showing the DE-5000 using Rs on a 6000µF cap for ESR.  I am using 10kHz because it is the lowest freq. that gives 0.001 Ohm resolution because it settles faster than 1kHz.  Open and short calibration was done before starting the testing. The Micro ohm meter is calibrated and its worst case error at 0.010 Ohm is +/- 6 µOhm and at 0.020 Ohm is +/- 8 µOhm.  I am using pulse mode on the micro ohm meter because it uses 1amp drive on the 20 Milli Ohm scale and continuous mode would start to raise the copper wire temp and change the resistance. Pulse mode only gives a 166 Milli second pulse of current and latches the reading. This mode does add 2 µOhm to the above max errors but for this test it is irrelevant.  I have tested the DE-5000 Rs at single digit Milli Ohms  against the 510A and it is very good.  I would be very interested to see this test done on the Agilent 1733C (no Kelvin connections) but having 0.0001 Ohm resolution?

The kelvin clips used on the Micro ohm meter and the DE-5000 are my design and construction as shown in this thread. They do not come with the DE-5000.  A Pomona pincer is used as the starting point but they are modified to provide a true kelvin connection.

[PA4TIM]

I not yet watched your video, but I will. I tested the DE-5000 tonight on some coils.
I made a 7 uH coil with a DC resistance of 0.6993 Ohm measured with kelvin clips on a 7.5 digit prema.
It was 0.70764 Ohm at 1KHz on a GR1608
It was 0.700 Ohm at 10KHz and 0.708 at 100 KHz on a Boonton 63H
So all very close, the deviations are because of temp and presure ect, i did not wam everything up for a few hours, just a quick test.

Then i measured it with the IET at 100, 1, 10 and 100KHz and at 10 and 100KHz with the boonton ( value between brackets) the Boontol is restored, repaired and calibrated by me using GR inductors, ESI resistors and a vna and more stuff

100Hz : 0.70 Ohm, 9 uH
1 KHz : 0.707 Ohm, 9.1 uH ( 0.70764 Ohm on the GR1608, that did not manage to measure inductance because the Q scale starts to high for this poor coil)
10 KHz : 0.699 Ohm, 9.15 uH ( 0.700 Ohm and 9.01 uH)
100 KHz: 0.656 Ohm, 9.011 uH ( 0.708 Ohm and 9.005 uH)

So you see they are all rather close. By the way, the IET is not specially calibrated before this meaurement. I used the standard delivered croc adapter that I calibrated the lat time I used it. If I had the beautiful clips Robrenz made I think they would be even closer.

So if you want a real good meter, the IET is the one. That it uses the ( or a ? ) chipset that is used in other meters too, does not make those other meters as good as the IET, or even good meters. If you manage to screw up something as simple as the PSU i do not believe they do much of a job on the hard part ;-) To be as accurate as the IET the rest of the design must be good too. It is not for nothing the others talk about 1% while the manufacturer of the chipset, as does IET, talks about 0.3 %. And that is not just a marketing number.

[Wytnucls]

@ Robrenz
Measuring resistance in Rs mode at 10 kHz has a resolution of 0.001 and a stated accuracy of 1%+/-3d on the DE-5000, so your measurements could have been 4 counts out either way. Just because yours is spot on in this case, doesnt mean it will be next time around or that the next meter will have the same accuracy. You just cannot objectively trust the meter readings down to a one milliOhm accuracy.

I'm not convinced that you're actually measuring ESR in that 10 kHz Rs mode. It is certainly not the way the manufacturer calculates ESR for capacitors.

I think that the stated accuracy of 1%+/-3d is also a bit optimistic, when the manufacturer (Cyrustek) publishes 1%+/-5d.

Cyrustek garantees accuracy if proper ratio resistor calibration and open/short calibration has been performed. So it looks like all the hard work is done by the chipset and all meters using the Cyrustek set-up should have about the same accuracy if calibrated properly..

[robrenz]

@ Wytnucls

I have done enough repeated testing of the DE-5000 on Rs to say that MY meter is much more accurate than the stated Rs accuracy. It is true that I may have the only one that happened to fall in the center of the bell curve.  But it looks like PA4TIM also happened to get one that is exceptionally accurate. The fact that IET Labs will sell you a calibration certificate implies it definitely meets its stated specs. The video showed the 5000 exactly matching the 10 and 20 milliOhm values of the test wire with no bobble at 1 milliOhm resolution. It also was dead stable with no bobble when the Rs of the capacitor was included. and it repeated exactly on the second pass. The accuracy of the 59 miiliOhms Rs of the capacitor is a separate issue which I have no means of checking but PA4TIM's readings show that it is very accurate also .  The 510 micro Ohm meter is substantially more accurate than the 3458A at 20 milliOhms and below. At three digits more resolution than the 1milliOhm and a worst case error of 0.04% at 20 milliOhm and 0.06% at 10 MilliOhm  I don't think I am stretching things.
I have caracterized the 5000 starting at zero and doing 1 milliohm steps thru 10 milliOhms. It is spot on if you feed it exact whole milliOhm values. Its max error is one milliOhm on any reading if you take 250µOhm steps from zero to 10 MilliOhms.  The 510A does offset compensated ohms measurements so thermal emfs of the measurements are eliminated. And since Rs is using an AC excitation it also eliminates any thermal emf issues.  My readings are not 4 counts out either way and this performance has been checked multiple times over the 2 years that I have had the 5000.

My point?  This is an exceptional piece of equipment that has conservative specifications.  If you ordered the Cal with the 5000 from IET and it failed some ranges you would send it back. There is no ability to adjust/calibrate the 5000 that I am aware of and I don't think IET is going to risk their reputation with shaky specs.

ESR vs Rs  If you look at the ESR readings of the 5000 they are just lower resolution and sometimes frequency limited versions of Rs.  Rs allow you to use any frequency you want on any capacitance.

My hunch is the chipset is available in various accuracy grades and DER is using premium chips for the IET branded DE-5000

[Wytnucls]

There is a one-turn trimpot on the PCB next to the input ADC (VR2). No sign of VR1 anywhere, which could have been removed in later revisions.
The CEM version has 2 multi-turn trimpots, with one next to each ADC.
I don't think that there are several version of the Cyrustek LCR chipset. The Q probably stands for QFP-100L and the S for SSOP-48L.
The market is just too small for that and Cyrustek is usually very good in listing all the versions of their chips on their site. Also, the difference in quoted accuracy is only a couple of counts on all ranges, making it even more unlikely.
There is always the possibility of IET custom chips, but that would push up the unit price to prohibitive levels.
The fact that the chips were epoxied over also means that they are not custom made, but rather freely available in quantity from the manufacturer.
Perhaps IET spends more time with each device, tweaking them to the highest accuracy possible.
It would be interesting to compare the 5000 with other devices using the same chipset, to see if there is really a noticeable difference in performance.

[PA4TIM]

It is realy measuring ESR in Rs mode, in all frequencies. Rs = ESR, besides that, I checked readings agains the D of my GR1620 ( and tested it for other ranges against my standards) and it is realy ESR, not Z like on most ESR meters.

Problem is the test done by Robrenz does not prove it measures ESR. ( but it does !) But it proves the accuracy, and I do not think our meters are the only two, a compare would be nice but difficult, i o not think someone will buy two of them and I'm not Dave, the manufactures do not send me standard caps and coils or instruments as a test ;-)

A Z meauring ESR meter will also show an acurate increase because they operate at 100kHz and Xc is neglectble there for larger capacitors, ( datasheets give Z at 100 kHz, the times I saw ESR it was at 1 kHz together with D, what is stated always at 1 kHz or 120Hz) that is why many peope have so much faith in their ESR meters. But that test is not the way. Measuring DF or phase angle and transformimg that to ESR is the right way. The IET DOES measure real ESR in all C ranges and in Rs.

A very old test for LCR meters is to add 1 K in series with the capacitor, the meter should still give the same capacity. Many meters fail this test and give the capacitance based on the |Z| meaured.

If accuracy is based on the right R ratio calibration and Open/short calibration. I think there could be the huge difference between IET and other chipset users. The R-ratio calibration is done by the manufacturer and I think the resistors under the analog front end take care of that. And using cheap non precision chinese resistors or high quality precision resistors makes a big difference in performance and in cost. The fact IET only uses one one-turn trimmer and the CEM use 2 multiturns also is remarkable, multiturns are a cheap and more unstable way to avoid expensive precision components or hand-picking components.

Besides that there are things like routing, connectors, quality of pcb material, proper use of guarding ( very important) and things like Leaking current due to dirty boards or chips ( that is why i never open this sort of instruments unless for repair) and that could be the reason for the potting on the IET chipset  too !
Bob Pease once has written about how you ruin a precision chip by touching it with your fingers. The leakage current can increase with a factor as big as 100. )
In my Fluke 332 are pcbs that have a sticker not to touch them because they are ultrasonic cleaned. My Fluke 720 was out leakage specs at 1000V by a factor of 1000, after two times cleaning using ipa and measuring it hanging on a rope i got it good again.

I designed and build a fF meter ( meaures impedance but ESR is neglectble for the result in those regions) with 1 fF usable resolution. It had 6,5 digit readout using a TRMS meter. The last 2 digits were unstable until I added guarding and cleaned everything with ipa, even cleaning between the front connctors improved performance.

If it was so easy, just using a chipset, every multimeter using a LM399 would be the same too ?

I think cyrustek makes a hell of a lot mor LCR chipsets as for instance AD makes LM399 or LT makes LTZ1000 Vrefs. And both those you can buy in grades so why not the cyrustek chipset ? Also things like burn in time by the manufacturer of the meter make a difference, maybe here too. There also is a crystal. There is a big difference in stability between cheap and good crystals, and a stable frequency is important for accurate measurements. And IET also offers NIST calibration for the DE-5000 as an option ( but that takes 2 weeks and a lot of cash extra)

I also do not understand why the masstek needs 12V and does not work on 9V if it used the same chipset.
An other strange thing, i can not find real datasheets of this chipset. Only the (end-user based) sales brochure they call datasheet, so it could be possible there are different versions. If they statet accuracy < 0.3 % It also can be they can deliver chipsets with accuracy < 0.3 and not all chipsets are better then that. It can be possible they also have 1 % or worse sets. We will never know, and assuming is the mother of all.......

So all these factors make the meter too, but buyers only look, "hey, it is cheap, they use that chipset too, so it must be as good as the IET", even advise to use the IET manual. yes, sure, dream on, like with many multimeters, it uses the same cabinet, or some dare to say, almost the same, so it must be the same meter. The chinese are more clever then some buyers. if I build a car out of wood and cardboard, looking like a RR with a RR engine in it, it is still not a RR ;-)

It even could be possible some chipsets are fake ( I do not say it is, but there are plenty examples of fake Chinese components and instruments so it is possible)

[mzzj]

What do you mean ?
I just grabbed a hand full of MKT, MKP, MMK ect from the caps drawer, measured them all in Cs, D and ESR ( not that that is an interesting number but its the buzz word today ;-) ) on 100, 120, 1K, 10K and 100K.
Results are like I would expect them. A ( very) small decrease in capacitance due to ESL and a rise in D with frequency. ESR high at 100Hz and decreasing with frequency.
I have not compared these to my vna or GR1620 but when I bought the meter I tested that with my test and standard caps and it is very accurate. Better as the specs tell.

Just wanted to see some results out of curiousity ie. how high Q values it will show for a good quality caps.

Peaktech: 2x300nF parallei pulse polypropylenes shows Q overrange  with 100hz and 120Hz frequency as pretty much expected. With 1k measurement frequency results vary somewhere between Q=1800 ... to over range.

[PA4TIM]

I measured a few caps.
Philips HQ 344 MKT 2.2 uF 10% 250V, I could not find a datasheet but I type this now I'm not rolling on the floor anymore from laughing, found a post on some forum of some idiot who was playin-in these caps in a CD player and amplifier.    So I'm sorry, i just hooked them up cold, should you think I leave then on my bridge for a couple a weeks for final measurement 

4 of those soldered together. That adds some copper resistance

A GR 1424A 0.25 % 1-10 uF polyprop standard as reference 1.001,906,233 uF at 1kHz, D = 0.000204 Xc = 158.852133912 ESR = 0.0324 Ohm measured on a 0.01% GR-1620 at 1kHz
The percentage below is the deviation to the 1424A as measured on the GR1620 (and also checked on sone other precision bridges and meters so it will be pretty close)

GR1608A, 0.1 % bridge at 1005Hz
GR1424A at 1kHz 1.0015 uF and D = 0.00025  Xc = 158,91656 ESR = 0.039 Ohm Q = 4000 (-0.04% well within specs)
MKT at 1 KHz 2.239 uF D= 0.0035 Xc = 70.7294 ESR = 0.247 Ohm  Q=285.71
4MKT at 1KHz 8.837 uF D= 0.0044 Xc = 18.01006 ESR = 0.079 Ohm Q = 227.3

DE-5000
GR1424A
at 100 Hz 1.0028 uF  D = 0.000 Q = OL ESR = 0.03 Ohm -90 degrees
At 1 KHz  1.0029 uF D = 0.000 Q = OL ESR = 0.03 Ohm -90 ( + 0.099% well within specs)
1MKT
100 Hz 2.249 uF D= 0.001 Q =  661.3 ESR 1.07 Ohm
1 kHz 2.238 uF D = 0.005 Q = 185.6 ESR = 0.371 Ohm
ESR at 100 kHz = 0.078 Ohm

4 MKT parallel
100 Hz 8.865 uF D = 0.001 Q = 671.1 ESR = 0.30 Ohm
1 kHz 8.839 D= 0.005 Q = 185.6 ESR = 0.097 Ohm
ESR at 100 kHz = 0.020 Ohm
.

[SeanB]

I have an old board with a few film caps on them, the largest is an ICW  PW10uF250V unit, which came up as a pretty close to perfect capacitor when I checked it on my new MS5308. It was run in for a few years with a 5A or so 15kHz drive as it was in a tag detector as part of the output LC filtering network.

[Wytnucls]

Yes, the LCR meter does measure ESR in Rs mode, but with the required testing frequency of 120Hz for electrolytic caps, one only gets one extra digit of resolution.
Testing with these caps at a higher frequency, would give one more digit of resolution still, but a false ESR, which in turn would give a false D to enter 120Hz datasheet tables.
Here is a test, run on an new Daewoo RSS electrolytic cap of 100uF 100V:
Measured at:
120Hz     C:94.81uF     D:0.042    ESR:0.6 Ohm     Rs:0.62 Ohm       Theta:-87.3
1kHz       C:90.71uF                    ESR:0.21 Ohm     Rs:0.214 Ohm      Theta:-81.2
10kHz      C:83.2uF                     ESR:0.15 Ohm     Rs:0.155 Ohm       Theta:-38.3
100kHz    C:18.67uF                   ESR:0.14 Ohm     Rs:0.145 Ohm       Theta:34.6

Calculated ESR (120Hz) = D /2 Pi f C = 0.588 Ohm

Datasheet: Max D: 0.080

[PA4TIM]

Not all datasheets state D at 120Hz, 1KHz is also often stated. For many decades 1KHz was the standard, every single frequency bridge was 1 KHz, multi frequency once had 10 KHz extra, the adjustable ones started somewhere between 20 and 200Hz when capacitance increased ( in the 60's a 1000 uF cap was a big one, now we use 1000 uF / 1A as minimum) 120 and 100 Hz became more important.  It is not false ESR, it it the right ESR but like I told often, you still know nothing. And you wrote a while back what I think, D tells you more.

You get higher resolution using the Rs function as primair display. And why you need the resolution ? If it is giving you zero for ESR, D, and -90 for Theta you know it is a good one, who cares if it is 0.005 Ohm. If you want this sort of figures you need a lab grade C meter for component research, an impedance meter, VNA or lab grade bridge. Not a handheld LCR, alltough the DE-5000 does a hell of a job to prove some handhelds can almost compete with these lab grade instruments. But that is not strange if you think IET/GR has decades experience in building worlds best LCR meters/bridges. Their GR1620 is still a standard. My GR1608 is 0.1% but the specs on later model were much better. As far as I know not because of improvements but because it later turned out those specs were to much on the save side.

IET will not overspec instruments. Their specs have beem always more a worst case number. While for most Chinese the specs are like for instance minimal 1 % ( so if you are lucky it is 1% but it can be 5% too, or the state typicl, avarage ect, most times not even tracable. IET can provide A2LA accredited calibration with uncertainties on the DE-5000.  Not sure you are going to get that from an
handheld on ebay.  As well if you have questions who do you call if you are buying a Uni-T? I had a stupid question about my DE5000 ( stupid becuse it was in the manual, but I mailed them and got the answer within a few hours ( and not a RTFM style answer)

Yes IET is more expensive.  There will always be people that purchase
just based upon price.  But I think service and support as well count
for something.  For example you can find the LCR meter guide on their website
http://www.ietlabs.com/notes/lcrprimer/?___store=default as well as other
material at http://www.ietlabs.com

But it is easy to transfrorm D. If you meaure D at a 1KHz bridge, the D reading is for 1KHz only. If you feed that bridge 100Hz the "D reading /10" is the D at 100Hz.
But you know how to calculate and interpret D so I do probbly not understand your question.

[Wytnucls]

That would explain why the LCR meter defaults to 1kHz on start up, instead of 120Hz.
I am surprised that IET equipped their handheld with a Cyrustek chipset, instead of developing their own, considering their vast experience with LCR meters.
I'll agree that you get better and faster support from companies like IET, but after sale service and customer relations are getting better in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. The main obstacle is still the language barrier, especially on the technical side.
I am in Changhai at the moment and will visit UNI-T's offices in the next few days for a look at their latest meters. I also hope to have some time with the UT612 for a comparison with my own CEM LCR meter.

[robrenz]

Yes IET is more expensive.  There will always be people that purchase
just based upon price. 

[Fanboy mode]

At $335.00 the DE-5000 is roughly $100.00 cheaper than the Agilent U1733C.  The Agilent has an extra digit of resolution and a much more sophisticated user interface. But I think the extra digit came from marketing not engineering since it has no 4 wire measurement and the additional digits error goes thru the roof on the lowest scales   Even though the banner spec of the 1733 is 0.2% versus the 0.3% of the 5000, the 5000 is equal or more accurate on many frequency/range combinations.

An example of how the extra digit is from marketing:
The IET DE-5000  will give you +/- 1% +3 counts on the 20 Ohm range at 1kHz  Calculated % of value error would  be:
10 Ohm  = 1.%
1.0 Ohm  = 1.3%
0.1 Ohm   = 4.0%
0.01 Ohm  = 31.0%
0.001 Ohm = 300%

The Agilent U1733C will give you +/- 0.7% +50 counts on the 2 Ohm range at 1kHz  Calculated % of value error would  be:
10 Ohm  = 0.75%
1.0 Ohm  = 1.2%
0.1 Ohm   = 5.7%
0.01 Ohm  = 50.7%
0.001 Ohm = 500%
0.0001 Ohm = 5000%

[/Fanboy mode] 

[kripton2035]

@PA4TIM,
How much did you pay for your DE5000 ? price + shipping + vat ?
did you buy it by IET directly ?
thanks.

[robrenz]

Here is PA4TIM's data from post #38 reorganized a little.

[staxquad]

It is realy measuring ESR in Rs mode, in all frequencies. Rs = ESR, besides that, I checked readings agains the D of my GR1620 ( and tested it for other ranges against my standards) and it is realy ESR, not Z like on most ESR meters.

Problem is the test done by Robrenz does not prove it measures ESR. ( but it does !) But it proves the accuracy, and I do not think our meters are the only two, a compare would be nice but difficult, i o not think someone will buy two of them and I'm not Dave, the manufactures do not send me standard caps and coils or instruments as a test ;-)

A Z meauring ESR meter will also show an acurate increase because they operate at 100kHz and Xc is neglectble there for larger capacitors, ( datasheets give Z at 100 kHz, the times I saw ESR it was at 1 kHz together with D, what is stated always at 1 kHz or 120Hz) that is why many peope have so much faith in their ESR meters. But that test is not the way. Measuring DF or phase angle and transformimg that to ESR is the right way. The IET DOES measure real ESR in all C ranges and in Rs.

A very old test for LCR meters is to add 1 K in series with the capacitor, the meter should still give the same capacity. Many meters fail this test and give the capacitance based on the |Z| meaured.

If accuracy is based on the right R ratio calibration and Open/short calibration. I think there could be the huge difference between IET and other chipset users. The R-ratio calibration is done by the manufacturer and I think the resistors under the analog front end take care of that. And using cheap non precision chinese resistors or high quality precision resistors makes a big difference in performance and in cost. The fact IET only uses one one-turn trimmer and the CEM use 2 multiturns also is remarkable, multiturns are a cheap and more unstable way to avoid expensive precision components or hand-picking components.

Besides that there are things like routing, connectors, quality of pcb material, proper use of guarding ( very important) and things like Leaking current due to dirty boards or chips ( that is why i never open this sort of instruments unless for repair) and that could be the reason for the potting on the IET chipset  too !
Bob Pease once has written about how you ruin a precision chip by touching it with your fingers. The leakage current can increase with a factor as big as 100. )
In my Fluke 332 are pcbs that have a sticker not to touch them because they are ultrasonic cleaned. My Fluke 720 was out leakage specs at 1000V by a factor of 1000, after two times cleaning using ipa and measuring it hanging on a rope i got it good again.

I designed and build a fF meter ( meaures impedance but ESR is neglectble for the result in those regions) with 1 fF usable resolution. It had 6,5 digit readout using a TRMS meter. The last 2 digits were unstable until I added guarding and cleaned everything with ipa, even cleaning between the front connctors improved performance.

If it was so easy, just using a chipset, every multimeter using a LM399 would be the same too ?

I think cyrustek makes a hell of a lot mor LCR chipsets as for instance AD makes LM399 or LT makes LTZ1000 Vrefs. And both those you can buy in grades so why not the cyrustek chipset ? Also things like burn in time by the manufacturer of the meter make a difference, maybe here too. There also is a crystal. There is a big difference in stability between cheap and good crystals, and a stable frequency is important for accurate measurements. And IET also offers NIST calibration for the DE-5000 as an option ( but that takes 2 weeks and a lot of cash extra)

I also do not understand why the masstek needs 12V and does not work on 9V if it used the same chipset.
An other strange thing, i can not find real datasheets of this chipset. Only the (end-user based) sales brochure they call datasheet, so it could be possible there are different versions. If they statet accuracy < 0.3 % It also can be they can deliver chipsets with accuracy < 0.3 and not all chipsets are better then that. It can be possible they also have 1 % or worse sets. We will never know, and assuming is the mother of all.......

So all these factors make the meter too, but buyers only look, "hey, it is cheap, they use that chipset too, so it must be as good as the IET", even advise to use the IET manual. yes, sure, dream on, like with many multimeters, it uses the same cabinet, or some dare to say, almost the same, so it must be the same meter. The chinese are more clever then some buyers. if I build a car out of wood and cardboard, looking like a RR with a RR engine in it, it is still not a RR ;-)

It even could be possible some chipsets are fake ( I do not say it is, but there are plenty examples of fake Chinese components and instruments so it is possible)

I run my MS5308 at 8.55V.

If you don't physically compare the units, the IET against other Cyrustek chipset units, it's just conjecture and opinion to justify paying ~3 times more for about the same result.

The MS5308 is pretty tight with the GR-1608A, actually differs by only .0001uF, (so either your IET Cyrustek chipset is inferior to my MS5308 Cyrustek chipset or your GR-1608 is only a .1% version, or a combination of both - right back at you)

[PA4TIM]

The 12V is from the topic about the ms5308 and a video. It ran on 12V batteries and the adapter that came with it alters measurement results and is  known to kill meters.
But if yours does run on less as 9V, production is maybe not very consistent.

My GR1608 is the 0.1% version but it agrees with standard caps and my GR1620.
I'm told the older 1608's are much better as the specs were, so on later models the specs are changed.

About our measurement set up, this tells nothing because the whole setup is bad. That HP decade is 0.25 % +/-3 pF. I have one too.
But that specs are only valid for 3 terminal measurement.

You use a two terminal connection ( the 1608 can make 3 terminal measurements so why this bad setup with the very long cables ? ) Those cables add a lot of capacitance. So the value on the meter or the value on the HP is wrong because you can not measure 40 pF capacitance exact like you do.

But this is not important and and the discussion, there is allready a topic about all the great " features" of the MS o defend it there ;-)

If you buy a IET you know it will match the specs or better. You now the warranty and service is good.
And yes, that is worth the extra ~100 dollar ( it s not 3X the price)  over the ms5308 with a powersupply that can kill the instrument, a cal button you can not reach and have you seen the insde from the MS and the IET in the teardowns and videos ? Maybe you are just lucky you found a good MS but with a brand like that it stays a gamble. I do not like to gamble. And I'm boss over my own wallet, so you do not have to decide for me.

But, hey, i do not care, buy the ms if you want, like I do not want that.

[Wytnucls]

Since the subject is on accuracy, please note that Cyrustek has some other proviso on published figures:
1. Accuracy is only garanteed if the DUT is less than 10cm away from the front end chip (ES51920) pins.
2. If D (Tan d) is higher than 0.1, the published accuracy figures have to be increased by a factor of SQRT (1+D^2)

[staxquad]

The 12V is from the topic about the ms5308 and a video. It ran on 12V batteries and the adapter that came with it alters measurement results and is  known to kill meters.
But if yours does run on less as 9V, production is maybe not very consistent.

My GR1608 is the 0.1% version but it agrees with standard caps and my GR1620.
I'm told the older 1608's are much better as the specs were, so on later models the specs are changed.

About our measurement set up, this tells nothing because the whole setup is bad. That HP decade is 0.25 % +/-3 pF. I have one too.
But that specs are only valid for 3 terminal measurement.

You use a two terminal connection ( the 1608 can make 3 terminal measurements so why this bad setup with the very long cables ? ) Those cables add a lot of capacitance. So the value on the meter or the value on the HP is wrong because you can not measure 40 pF capacitance exact like you do.

But this is not important and and the discussion, there is allready a topic about all the great " features" of the MS o defend it there ;-)

If you buy a IET you know it will match the specs or better. You now the warranty and service is good.
And yes, that is worth the extra ~100 dollar ( it s not 3X the price)  over the ms5308 with a powersupply that can kill the instrument, a cal button you can not reach and have you seen the insde from the MS and the IET in the teardowns and videos ? Maybe you are just lucky you found a good MS but with a brand like that it stays a gamble. I do not like to gamble. And I'm boss over my own wallet, so you do not have to decide for me.

But, hey, i do not care, buy the ms if you want, like I do not want that.

I knew about the power supply having noise before I purchased MS5308.  I blame the noisy power supply, you blame the bystander, MS5308.  I tested the unit for the operating voltage range and operate it at 8.55V from a constant voltage power supply or from NiMH cells x 7 ranging from 10V to 8.55V in it's capacity discharge.

I treat the HP decade value I dialed up as an unknown.  Don't really care about it's specifications.   Two meters are measuring the value and I'm comparing.  Why change the parameters for the GR if it's not the same as the MS5308?   

MS5308 did measure 40.0pF.  I didn't measure with the GR1608A because I didn't find the cabling.   Now that I've found the cabling, I tested that 40pF capacitance and got 40pF with 0 D, just like MS5308.   

With a shorter cable, a few less pF would not change the uF results, but dissipation would decrease.  I re-tested to that effect, D did improve to ~.0005.

I paid $170 from Franky delivered to my door, no extra expenses.     jpb, the originator of this thread paid in all $570 which is 3.35 times more.

And just like you, I claim that my equipment performs much better than it's specifications.

Sure great companies like Fluke, HP, GR, Tek produce more dependable and accurate equipment, but it seems that the Cyrustek chipset has a lot to do with the accuracy and performance of Mastech's MS5308 and IET's DE-5000.

[PA4TIM]

I do not blame the bystander, i blame the package. It is absurd that for a 170 dollar instrument ( and I have seen much higher prices, the IET is 350) you get it delivered with a powersupply that can kill your meter and influence the measurements like shown by two people in the other topic. I do not care about the cause of the roblem and that you can solve it yourself, the manufacturer sould olve that. You pay for the total. And as a total it stinks, that is what I have against it. Not about accuracy.

And the worst part is they knew, more people complained, they still shipped it untill enough complains came. Then the advise came not to use the shipped psu instead of replacing it by good ones. How hard is it to make or buy a decent psu and test it before shipping 

It is fine you have a version that runs on 9V, but they all should do that. Uniform erformance, repeatabiltiy ect and some folks here have tried to operate it at 9 V and that did not work so it looks like there are more revisions of the instrument or the specs vary from product to product. Like the connection to the psu socket, wires to short, no problem, just solder it to a component with the tension of a guitar string ( see other topic)
So the thing as a whole package including service ect is what makes me dislike it, all this shows no respect for customers.

The accuracy is indeed "limmited" by the chipset but this is not the only thing. The final accuracy is depending on the right use of the chipset. Right distances, 4 wire technic ( in fact, the IET uses a 5 wire technik ( the guard wire, two sense and two source) , the used resistors, other parts and terminals ect.

Your GR1608 is beautifull, what year it is ? Mine was broken when I got it, i repaired and calibrated it with help from Henry Hall, the designer. A very nice and helpfull man. It is my favourite allround brigde ( i so have the handy GR1650B and a GR1620 that was used by GR self)

You know the GR is a 3 terminal device ? Because you now again used wires. Those wires and the terminals should add about 2 to 6 pF, the HP is also only accurate when used in 3 term mode. Many people start screwing in it to adjust it in 2 terminal mode but that does not work, it needs the guard to cancel the capacitance between standards and inner cabinet. Calibrating one is a hell of a job.
Release the clip between low and ground now you have three terminas. The third terminal on your GR is a more or less hidden one. There is a screw under the two DUT terminals, this is made to connect a fork terminalfonnected to the shielding of the low cable, or to both cables. The low is the most important. In that case you can use ( even longer) coaxial lines without getting the faults the two short wires introduce.

(but it is easy to measure, just measure the two wire at the same distance and position as an open. This is the value you have to subtract. Measuring a cap with a ESr of a few 10 mOhm in series with two long cables with a resistance of also a few 10 mOhm changes D. That is not strange, but I think you know that.

[JuiceKing]

The 12V is from the topic about the ms5308 and a video. It ran on 12V batteries and the adapter that came with it alters measurement results and is  known to kill meters.
But if yours does run on less as 9V, production is maybe not very consistent.

My GR1608 is the 0.1% version but it agrees with standard caps and my GR1620.
I'm told the older 1608's are much better as the specs were, so on later models the specs are changed.

About our measurement set up, this tells nothing because the whole setup is bad. That HP decade is 0.25 % +/-3 pF. I have one too.
But that specs are only valid for 3 terminal measurement.

You use a two terminal connection ( the 1608 can make 3 terminal measurements so why this bad setup with the very long cables ? ) Those cables add a lot of capacitance. So the value on the meter or the value on the HP is wrong because you can not measure 40 pF capacitance exact like you do.

But this is not important and and the discussion, there is allready a topic about all the great " features" of the MS o defend it there ;-)

If you buy a IET you know it will match the specs or better. You now the warranty and service is good.
And yes, that is worth the extra ~100 dollar ( it s not 3X the price)  over the ms5308 with a powersupply that can kill the instrument, a cal button you can not reach and have you seen the insde from the MS and the IET in the teardowns and videos ? Maybe you are just lucky you found a good MS but with a brand like that it stays a gamble. I do not like to gamble. And I'm boss over my own wallet, so you do not have to decide for me.

But, hey, i do not care, buy the ms if you want, like I do not want that.

I knew about the power supply having noise before I purchased MS5308.  I blame the noisy power supply, you blame the bystander, MS5308.  I tested the unit for the operating voltage range and operate it at 8.55V from a constant voltage power supply or from NiMH cells x 7 ranging from 10V to 8.55V in it's capacity discharge.

I treat the HP decade value I dialed up as an unknown.  Don't really care about it's specifications.   Two meters are measuring the value and I'm comparing.  Why change the parameters for the GR if it's not the same as the MS5308?   

MS5308 did measure 40.0pF.  I didn't measure with the GR1608A because I didn't find the cabling.   Now that I've found the cabling, I tested that 40pF capacitance and got 40pF with 0 D, just like MS5308.   

With a shorter cable, a few less pF would not change the uF results, but dissipation would decrease.  I re-tested to that effect, D did improve to ~.0005.

I paid $170 from Franky delivered to my door, no extra expenses.     jpb, the originator of this thread paid in all $570 which is 3.35 times more.

And just like you, I claim that my equipment performs much better than it's specifications.

Sure great companies like Fluke, HP, GR, Tek produce more dependable and accurate equipment, but it seems that the Cyrustek chipset has a lot to do with the accuracy and performance of Mastech's MS5308 and IET's DE-5000.

The decade capacitor is so nice and compact. I saw one of those in Japan for more than $400 in a used test equipment store. Do you know the tolerance?

[kripton2035]

yes and $1000 used and calibrated...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-4440B-capacitance-decade-NIST-calibrated-certified-/130448096203?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5f4ffbcb

[PA4TIM]

I got mine from free from a calibration lab together with the rest of the inventore 
It is a very nice thing http://www.pa4tim.nl/?p=2283 here you see a picture from the inside too.

[JuiceKing]

I got mine from free from a calibration lab together with the rest of the inventore 
It is a very nice thing http://www.pa4tim.nl/?p=2283 here you see a picture from the inside too.

And why am I not surprised to see it in your lab?

Looks like another Yokogawa HP creation -- it's so small and precise.

[PA4TIM]

That other HP / yokogawa is dead, i'm repairing a Fender Twin reverb, tested caps on leakage ( 600 V 20-100 nF) allways bleed them afterwards but one escaped, i think the lead dropped of while beeding, or the switch did not sette. To be short, i hooked up the old workhorse (HP 4260) and the it stopped working so I think a cap was still charged. This is the first time and I really do a lot of cap testing. I fel very stupid. But I repaired it when I got it so i probably get it working again.

[staxquad]

I do not blame the bystander, i blame the package. It is absurd that for a 170 dollar instrument ( and I have seen much higher prices, the IET is 350) you get it delivered with a powersupply that can kill your meter and influence the measurements like shown by two people in the other topic. I do not care about the cause of the roblem and that you can solve it yourself, the manufacturer sould olve that. You pay for the total. And as a total it stinks, that is what I have against it. Not about accuracy.

And the worst part is they knew, more people complained, they still shipped it untill enough complains came. Then the advise came not to use the shipped psu instead of replacing it by good ones. How hard is it to make or buy a decent psu and test it before shipping 

It is fine you have a version that runs on 9V, but they all should do that. Uniform erformance, repeatabiltiy ect and some folks here have tried to operate it at 9 V and that did not work so it looks like there are more revisions of the instrument or the specs vary from product to product. Like the connection to the psu socket, wires to short, no problem, just solder it to a component with the tension of a guitar string ( see other topic)
So the thing as a whole package including service ect is what makes me dislike it, all this shows no respect for customers.

The accuracy is indeed "limmited" by the chipset but this is not the only thing. The final accuracy is depending on the right use of the chipset. Right distances, 4 wire technic ( in fact, the IET uses a 5 wire technik ( the guard wire, two sense and two source) , the used resistors, other parts and terminals ect.

Your GR1608 is beautifull, what year it is ? Mine was broken when I got it, i repaired and calibrated it with help from Henry Hall, the designer. A very nice and helpfull man. It is my favourite allround brigde ( i so have the handy GR1650B and a GR1620 that was used by GR self)

You know the GR is a 3 terminal device ? Because you now again used wires. Those wires and the terminals should add about 2 to 6 pF, the HP is also only accurate when used in 3 term mode. Many people start screwing in it to adjust it in 2 terminal mode but that does not work, it needs the guard to cancel the capacitance between standards and inner cabinet. Calibrating one is a hell of a job.
Release the clip between low and ground now you have three terminas. The third terminal on your GR is a more or less hidden one. There is a screw under the two DUT terminals, this is made to connect a fork terminalfonnected to the shielding of the low cable, or to both cables. The low is the most important. In that case you can use ( even longer) coaxial lines without getting the faults the two short wires introduce.

(but it is easy to measure, just measure the two wire at the same distance and position as an open. This is the value you have to subtract. Measuring a cap with a ESr of a few 10 mOhm in series with two long cables with a resistance of also a few 10 mOhm changes D. That is not strange, but I think you know that.

I commend Mastech for deciding that that 9v battery that IET uses is insufficient to allow long term use and provided 8x AA capacity for well over 100 hours use.  It is a pity that the departments didn't get together and they didn't test the outsourced power supply before including it in the package, but have now rectified the problem by not including it for the future, just like IET.

The price was low on the MS5308 from Franky because of known power supply issues, and I and others took advantage if it.  Got a cord out of it to splice to a power supply of my choosing.   The next batch will be pricier.

I'll get back to you on the GR1608A, open it up and take pictures, check the date. 

(on a side note, I've also got a Sinclair/Micronta multimeter like yours, AC and DC volts displays correctly, but current and ohms doesn't.)

[staxquad]

The decade capacitor is so nice and compact. I saw one of those in Japan for more than $400 in a used test equipment store. Do you know the tolerance?

yes and $1000 used and calibrated...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-4440B-capacitance-decade-NIST-calibrated-certified-/130448096203?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5f4ffbcb

from pa4tim's website

notice the 1973 price



yes, nice and compact, compared to my GR 1490-D decade inductor

freaking heavy and 3x the size

bought both at pre Dave prices and pre USPS exorbitance to Canada

"yes and $1995 used and calibrated... the shipping is $136.63"

mine says 11.206H Q114.3 on MS5308 for all 10s (all 10s should= 11.11H) (GR1608A says 11.05H Q120)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/GR-General-Radio-1490-D-1490D-decade-inductor-calibrated-/400409420791?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5d3a42e3f7

$197.50 as is
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-General-Radio-Company-Decade-Inductor-Type-1490-D-/150975141186?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2326d1d542

[JuiceKing]

My GR 1419-B has the same four decades, but no pf trim. Despite this, it specifies only a 1% tolerance (vs. HP's 0.25%), and weighs at least twice as much. Oh, and it was $400 in 1973. Ouch. This is why, I suppose, you can buy and 1419-B for less than 1/4 the original price in 1973, whereas the HP units are going for 4x their original price.

[staxquad]

My GR 1419-B has the same four decades, but no pf trim. Despite this, it specifies only a 1% tolerance (vs. HP's 0.25%), and weighs at least twice as much. Oh, and it was $400 in 1973. Ouch. This is why, I suppose, you can buy and 1419-B for less than 1/4 the original price in 1973, whereas the HP units are going for 4x their original price.

I searched my emails.  Paid $52.99 plus $19.99 shipping for that HP 4440B, Feb 2007.

[kripton2035]

IET new and calibrated are less than $300 (yes plus shipping)
they are more compact than the HP ...
http://www.ietlabs.com/decadebox/csbox.html

[PA4TIM]

http://www.ietlabs.com/hacs-z-series.html  hmm, would love to have on of these

[kripton2035]

4x the actual price in 10-20 years ??

[Wytnucls]

Just back from Shanghai. Here is a taster picture of the UT-612 PCB. The meter cost me 115$, including tax. USB datalogging, USB power supply and what looks like 4 wire measurement up to the jacks only. I'll do a full review shortly:

[BravoV]

Wytnucls, looking forward to read your review, thanks ! 

[Wytnucls]

Well, the first thing I notice on the UT612, is that the front end Cyrustek chip has a different code to the Cyrustek datasheet one. This one is labelled A instead of S, so it is quite feasible that there are different versions of these chips, at least as far as the ES51920 is concerned.
The UNI-T LCR meter takes a measurement a lot faster than the CEM DT-9935, which has the ES51920S. (About half the time)
Whether this is a good thing or not, I don't know. I also don't know if this is due to the different chip or some other circuitry.
The published specs for the UT612 and DT-9935 are the same as the ones  from the Cyrustek datasheet.
So, all bets are off, the IET meter could indeed have a more accurate chipset, but we'll probably never know for sure, as the ICs have been epoxied over, unless proper comparative testing can be done.

Measurement from power up with 1% 2.2k resistor on short test leads: UT612: 3s  DT-9935: 5s  (1kHz auto Rs mode)
Results: 2.201 and 2.199 kOhms

There is also a noticeable lag between the two meters with frequency change , but not with function hopping.

[jarvis]

Well, the first thing I notice on the UT612, is that the front end Cyrustek chip has a different code to the Cyrustek datasheet one. This one is labelled A instead of S, so it is quite feasible that there are different versions of these chips, at least as far as the ES51920 is concerned.
The UNI-T LCR meter takes a measurement a lot faster than the CEM DT-9935, which has the ES51920S. (About half the time)
Whether this is a good thing or not, I don't know. I also don't know if this is due to the different chip or some other circuitry.
The published specs for the UT612 and DT-9935 are the same as the ones  from the Cyrustek datasheet.
So, all bets are off, the IET meter could indeed have a more accurate chipset, but we'll probably never know for sure, as the ICs have been epoxied over, unless proper comparative testing can be done.

Measurement from power up with 1% 2.2k resistor on short test leads: UT612: 3s  DT-9935: 5s  (1kHz auto Rs mode)
Results: 2.201 and 2.199 kOhms

There is also a noticeable lag between the two meters with frequency change , but not with function hopping.

ES51920A seems to be version of lower current consumption.

[mos6502]

Wytnucls, as c4757p summed up, these are just two sides of the same coin.

My question is just simply why they didn't include 100 KHz while designing the circuit or chipset at the 1st place ? Is that because of technical constraint that might inflict higher cost ?

The 100Khz standard is pretty aged in the industry, especially at power cap datasheets.

There are not 2 sides of the same coin. D is a direct indication of the healthy state of the capacitor. ESR doesn't tell you anything by itself. You have to consult approximate reference tables to find out if the cap is perhaps out of specs. Alternatively, you'd have to work out D anyway, to crosscheck with the published datasheet (D= ESR x 2 x Pi x f x C). Cumbersome calculations if many different caps have to be checked in turn.
In my experience, a good indication to watch for is that any electrolytic cap with a D of 25% or more (0.25) needs to be replaced, especially if the initial rated capacitance has dropped by more than 25%.
If the caps are rated low ESR, a D of more than 10% (0.10) would indicate a failed or failing capacitor.
A capacitance meter with just 2 frequencies would suffice for most testing. All caps datasheets will reference values for either 120Hz or 1 KHz testing frequencies. There are special circumstances though, where testing caps at a higher frequency would be beneficial.

This makes a lot of sense. I've checked a bunch of known bad (vented) caps, and all had a D of 0.9-1.2. For good quality working older low ESR caps I measured 0.04-0.10. I also tested brand new high quality low ESR caps (Panasonic FR of several different sizes) and measured a D of 0.028-0.043. Overall, D corresponds excellently to ESR/size.

Using D to check caps also saves a lot of time, since the DE 5000 automatically does C/D in auto mode on powering up.

Using ESR to determine capacitor health is quite error prone, since you always have to check a table to see if the ESR is within spec. Not very practical.

Also, in circuit measurement works very well with the DE 5000. Yes, the open circuit measuring voltage is 600-700mV, but during measuring the voltage drops to a few tens to a few hundreds of mV, depending on the impedance of the DUT. Testing caps in circuit, using auto mode at 120 Hz, shows you both C and D. By comparing the C reading with the capacitor you're testing, you immediately know if the measurement is plausible. Caps in parallel are no problem, they just behave like a single large capacitor.

The other limited tests I did with my DE 5000 show it's very accurate. On my collection of styrene caps, C readings were between 0.1-1% of the printed value. A 50 mOhm Dale resistor showed as a rock steady 0.050 Ohms in Rs mode. Can't get much better than that.

BTW, the higher frequency ranges are still useful when testing very small capacitances and inductances. At lower frequencies the accuracy and resolution would suffer, because the signal amplitude would get very low due to the low reactance at lower frequencies. So an ESR meter without the 10 and 100 kHz frequencies is definitely inferior.

[fluxcapacitor]

It looks like its got all the bear necessities .

[mos6502]

Indeed. Thanks for bearing with me.

[ted572]

FYI:  The DE-5000 has been replaced with the DE-6000 (much improved).  Although I still prefer the U1733C.

[Lightages]

FYI:  The DE-5000 has been replaced with the DE-6000 (much improved).  Although I still prefer the U1733C.

You have made this claim in a few threads now. Other than the claimed accuracy change no one has seen any difference inside. Is it really more accurate? Have you tested and seen any difference?

[PA4TIM]

To add some info about the DE-5000 performing over time. The two adapters (tweezers and the 2 croc adapter) are the only source of problems. I have repaired the original croc adapter several times (broken wire) until I replaced the wires with decent ones. Made them a few cm longer too.
Last week the tweezers started to misbehave. I changed it for the croc adapter and that gave the same problems (it measured a cap as a coil) So I was afraid the meter was toast but if I insert the cap in the DUT slits on the meter itself everything is well.
The second problem is that the banana busses on my DE-5000 are so thight none of my bananas fit. Very strange, I know there are tolerances for bananas and I have seen instruments that are rather over-sized but they were old so you never know what happend. This is the first time they are to tight.

The stand that you use to set it vertical is not to great, it comes loose to often.

Performance is still great, I use it almost every day and still love it . I had no other problems with it. It measures every LCR component I feed it.  I had a Voltcraft/extek that gave problems under 10pF and under 1 uH. I tested an Agilent for the owner and that had problems measuring small coils but in its defence, the battery was low so maybe that influenced measurements (That would be a bit stange because I have an Agilent DMM and even with the battery so low it becomes hard to read the display, the measurements are good)

But I must add, it can be me just being unlucky. The testleads and probes of my Agilent DMM are disintegrating, Already replaced the bananajacks and the common bus in the meter itself.  I killed Rigol probes within a year too so I'm probably guilty. On my defence, I use my 3 years old Hameg every day and the probes are still perfect. Never killed one of my Tek of Philips probes. But I killed two other Chinese probes (they are sold to me as budget Tek probes) they are in appearance and performance 1:1 with the Rigols.

[Srbel]

While measuring capacitance and ESR, I only get 3 digit readout for ESR. I get 0,01 or 0,00 (for example), but I should have 1 more digit (it is supposed to have 1 milli ohm resolution), so 0,01x or 0,00x.
When it shows 0,00 I do not know if it is 1 milli ohm or 9 milli ohm.

Why is that?

[PA4TIM]

See the manual, the resolution is not the same for every frequency. For the highest ESR resolution you can use the AC-R range. ESR is nothing more as the real part of the impedance and the AC-R function measures that real part.
(that is, I talk about the IET, I do not know for the non-IET version

[Srbel]

I have DER EE. Version for Japanese market, so I got manual in Japanese.

This is the correct manual: http://akizukidenshi.com/download/ds/deree/DE-5000_manu_en2p.pdf

I have just received the unit few days ago, and I have only tried it out a bit. I have not had the time to read the manual in detail yet.

[Srbel]

No 1 milli Ohm resolution.
I only get 10 milli Ohm resolution on DCR.

I can not measure ESR on high frequencies (100 KHz, 10 KHz or even 1 KHz on some), if capacitor is more than a few hundred uF.

[kripton2035]

measuring ESR at the milliohm is useless, unless you're doing RF stuff
in that case a professionnal LCR meter is required, but it will cost 10x the DEREE at least...

[PA4TIM]

Indeed, that is useless for many reasons. But the opinion here is that the IET is the same as the DEREE. And I just tested it because I became curious. I measured the ESR at 100kHz from a 6800uF cap with my IET DE5000. This was 0.023 ohm. So you do something wrong or the meters are not equal.

[kripton2035]

measuring a 2200µF/25V (that's the biggest I have) with my DEREE gives 0.035? so I get the milliohm (@100KHz)
you must force the measuring system to measure Rs (and not in auto mode)

[Srbel]

OK, in Rs mode it can measure at 100 KHz. I have tried Panasonic 3.300 uF 25V and it measured 8 milli Ohm.

But, in DCR mode (not measuring capacitor, but a wire to measure resistance), I only get 10 milli Ohm resolution. I can only get 1 milli Ohm resolution in ACR mode. :/

So, what if I want to see what is the best inductor I have in terms of DCR?

[Deathwish]

mine came the other day, seriously its built like a tank, I mean, does it really have to be the size of a house brick !. I could use it to float across the channel to France on.