I suspect what he meant was a LCR/ESR meter; as in a single device which combines the two functions. These are common nowadays, they weren't always.
When ESR meters as commonly used in electronics repair were first devised, they showed two parameters: Capacitance and ESR. They worked on capacitors, period.
Some LCR Meters, particularly older laboratory units, use a substitution bridge to determine the value of the DUT and don't actually offer ESR or Tan δ parameters.
It is only later models which can use the magic of cheap microprocessors and multiple ADCs which can offer all the above in a single device, even giving all these parameters in one test.
Or is that not the question you were asking...?
mnem
It would be really surprising to find a LCR meter that is not able to measure Rs. Even if they have different name, ESR is equal to Rs. All LCR meters can measure Rs. Even the old one.
Personally, I think ESR meters are useless when you have a good LCR meter. Maybe ESR meters have better range ?
I'm not sure why people tend to believe ESR meters actually measure something that LCR meters can't. The LCR meter is the superior instrument, ESR meter only measure a subset (Rs and if you are lucky Cs) of what a LCR meter can do.
I think it's the test parameters, and the inconvenience. ESR meters typically operate at one of several... well, I can't even call it a standard, as there really is no such thing... lets call it "commonly used" frequencies dependent upon capacitance range, such that results from one design of ESR meter are comparable to another.
Calculating it from Rs means knowing what frequency the LCR meter is running at right now, with this DUT, and it means that while you're diag-ing a PCB, every time you have to stop probing, pick up a pencil, and do some math to determine whether the cap is healthy or not.
What do you want to calculate here ? ESR == Rs. ESR is also dependent on frequency.
ESR as it is used on a repair bench boils all that down to a simpler, more repeatable result of ESR vs Capacitance which you can just eyeball, gauge whether it's reasonable, and move on to the next suspect component. Having used the DE-5000 for a couple years now, and being able to compare results from both test functions, I find that the Tan δ function is much more reliable as far as giving a definitive Yes/No answer, simply because if you aren't sure based on the internal "chart" one develops when using any such device, you can usually find this parameter in a MFR's datasheet.
I'm not questioning the use of ESR (Rs) here. And as you said, Tan δ (or D for Dissipation Factor) is most of the time more revealing.
The entire table of "acceptable ESR values" that people refer to is based on a chart created by Dick Smith decades ago, which unfortunately didn't include a LOT of today's Low and Ultra-Low ESR capacitor product lines. So what has evolved since is kindof a mishmash of both. That in and of itself is the main reason ESR as measured by an ESR meter is pretty useless from an enginerding standpoint.
That is also, I think, part of the reason Robert and I butted heads on this so hard (and keep doing so)... he's a hardcore engineer who has kept up with his professional development, so has a lot invested in knowing what he's doing, while I'm a retired engineer who was (a) never really that good at any of it except keeping several hundred circuits from a design in my head and (2) had to fall back on service & repair for my livelihood because I couldn't hack the modern corporate crazy-factory that is commercial/industrial engineering.
Sure ESR has been used in the industry for a long time and most components are not specified for Tan δ (Dissipation Factor). Not sure why this is a justification for measuring ESR with a ESR meters when a LCR meter can do the same measurement
I'm just saying you don't need both. If you are only interested in ESR, get a ESR meter. They are normally cheaper than full blown LCR meter. If you want more measurements (Cp, D, I, etc ..), you probably want a LCR meter.
But I'm forgetting where i'm posting right now. A normal person should have at least 4 LCR meters and 4 ESR meters, just to be sure.
I think we're coming at the same point from different angles. Most modern LCR meters do, in fact, calculate it all for you at the same time. Then, the deciding factor becomes one of price vs intended use. What I've been arguing is not the value of ESR as a measurement; it has its place in on a repair bench for sure.
All I'm arguing is that the DE-5000 is a lot easier to use as an ESR meter in that scenario than the ESR70 for a host of reasons; as I own both and have a lot of experience with exactly that usage, I feel more qualified than most to answer that question. Added to that is the DE-5000 is one of the least expensive such meters, has a large user base with oodles of empirical evidence that it does exactly as claimed, and
also that is it a more-than-serviceable entry level home-lab LCR meter. I felt the DE-5000 was a particularly good choice in Iced-Tea's case, as the ESR function is well-documented as very good and
it is not a chore to use like the ESR-70; which you have to place your probes, press a test button, wait for it to boot, do the test cycle, then scroll through a page or two for complete results every. single. time. you. test. a component. And often, all you get is "Invalid device or device not connected..." then you have to do the whole routine of power off, reposition probes, press button, wait... etc... again... Meanwhile, with the DE-5000, you set it to AUTO mode or select ESR, DCR, C, or L mode and just use the damned thing and it gives you results automatically, like a proper DMM. He has access to numerous lab-quality LCR meters and can do a apples-apples comparison to decide for himself whether the accuracy of the DE-5000 as a entry-level lab LCR meter is adequate or suspect. If he can compare the results against one of those LCR meters, as a great many other users have done and claim it is more than good enough, then I believe that is far more telling than any opinions we can offer here.
One thing to note... which I feel is important evidence to the MFR's attention to detail... is that the DE-5000 does ESR as a separate test function from the usual capacitance/phase angle/loss/Tan δ; that is because it uses industry-standard test parameters for the former, while the "commonly-used frequencies" that are "standard" with ESR meters have little in common with those parameters.As for the argument of what is a
real DE-5000... so far I have yet to see anything that looks like real documented evidence that one or another is a "fake". I've seen some very minor changes that I feel are completely in line with usual product revision cycle for cost-cutting, parts availability and production; nothing more. Maybe Robert & bd139 have seen some discussion on that which I haven't; I'll admit I haven't frequented those threads much since I bought mine.
Honestly... most of the arguments I saw
against the DE-5000 were little more than armchair QB-ing; people who had never even laid hands on one, so had no way of knowing whether they work or not, only that there was no traceable calibration and that they couldn't easily reverse-engineer it looking at pictures on the internet. I tend to take that kind of argument with a grain of salt, even when it comes from someone whose opinion I respect, like bd or Robert. I'm sure they have a whole slew of well-researched reasons why they don't want one; they've both touched on a few, but their angle is, IMO, more lab-oriented than mine. I think that's an important distinction here.
"I don't own one and I won't own one because..." is not valid empirical evidence. It is opinion based on guesswork. I do my own research, I decide, then I compare what I've found myself in my own use case against what others say. I found the evidence compelling enough to spend the pittance a DE-5000 costs, and made up my own mind.
I work very hard to avoid the whole "group-think" mess; it offends me on a visceral level. My complete aboot-face on the MS8911 is one such case in point; I was prepared to hate the thing after my experience with the MS8910. Similarly, I have considerably reversed my opinion of the
Cheap & Cheerful Chinese Hot Air Rework Stations... having used one of the cheapest 858D clones you can get, and found it more than serviceable for occasional use, I must admit I can't in good conscience recommend one of the better ones unless someone is using it for professional repair.
At this point it really doesn't matter, as Iced-Tea has already ordered a DE-5000, hopefully from one of the "known-reputable" vendors out there. I personally welcome his feedback on it, and hope he decides to get a ESR70 on the way as well so he can offer feedback on that unit too. I've worn out my anvil beating on this one, so I intend to give it a rest.
Cheers,
mnem