TECHNET Archives

July 2018

TechNet@IPC.ORG
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
Date:
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 12:08:53 +0000
Reply-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: capacitor measurement
From:
Drew meyer <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version:
1.0
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
base64
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines) 
Guy,



Read this and try putting the parts through their Curie point and test them again.  We have seen this on some parts here.



https://www.johansondielectrics.com/ceramic-capacitor-aging-made-simple



Drew



-----Original Message-----

From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Guy Ramsey

Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 7:00 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: [TN] capacitor measurement



I got pulled into a Receiving Inspection problem. Our test instrument, an old HP 4192A impedance meter, and a newer Instek 6020 tell us that our X5R capacitors are out of spec.

A 100uF, 10%, 6.3V capacitor measures between 25% and 30% below the nominal value.  The instruments have Kelvin probes and are zero calibrated at frequrency, 120Hz the test waveform is 500mV rms.

Does anyone have any advise?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2