IET DE-5000 LCR Meter in UK

[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