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 12:24:30 +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]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
base64
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines) 
Guy,



Also the drive system of many test instruments is insufficient for high value MLCC parts.  Attached is an HP instrument pdf outlining it and covering their test instrument.



It could be that too.







-----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