"Ray L. Volts" wrote in message
news:CzDHf.11492$0H1.8356@trnddc04...
Out of curiosity, who among you own and/or use both a Sencore Z-meter
(pre-LC103) and one of the portable, dedicated ESR testers? How does the
latter stack up against your Z-meter in terms of measurement speed,
accuracy and ruggedness? Which do you use more often on your bench?

What's your take on Sencore's assertions below. That it's marketing hype
is a given, but do the following also happen to be true and troublesome in
your experience with the portable testers?

"Normal ESR limits vary between aluminum and tantalum types and their
values. Small value electrolytic capacitors; 0.1, 0.22, 0.33, and 0.47 µFd
are now common among electronic circuits. ESR on electrolytic capacitors
above 1000 µFd is less than 0.5 ohms requiring 0.01 ohms of resolution for
good/bad testing. Testers that only test ESR do not accurately test
capacitors below 1 µFd and do not provide the resolution to good/bad test
ESR on capacitors over 1000 µFd."

and

"In circuit capacitor and inductor testing accuracy is plagued with many
parallel components and circuit paths. In-circuit ESR only testers often
miss bad capacitors in-circuit when they are reduced in value, shorted or
leaky. This can add hours to a repair job."

Would one of the ESR-only meters be a recommended investment, given that I
already own an LC-75 and don't currently do field work? Or should I bite
the bullet and just use that cash toward an eventual purchase of the LC103
(which does the in-circuit tests)?

Thanks,
Ray


We use a Sencore (not too old but don't remember the model) and a
Capanalyzer (or similar name) that we got from MCM.

Use the Capanalyzer over the Sencore at least 10 to 1. It's just that much
quicker and easier. Also, you can measure in-circuit with a high degree of
reliability.


Mark Z.