Electrolytic ESR verus temperature test

I decided that it was time to run a test of what happens to the ESR of an electrolytic capacitor over temperature. As always, there were a few too many surprises. The idea was to test electrolytics that might actually be used in a computer and which had a history of failing.

I went to considerable trouble to make sure that the lead and contact resistance did not contribute any errors. The wires were silver plated and everything possible was soldered. In order to "zero out" the lead resistance, I crossed the capacitor leads and used pliers to short them. After some testing at room temperature, I found it to be highly repeatable. Test setup: Each run took about 30 minutes.

I ran temp tests on 4 different caps. Cap A = 1800 uf 6.3VDC. New. 105C. Purchased on eBay. Cap B = 2200 uf 10VDC. 105C. Removed from Dell with bulging top. Cap C = 1000 uf 6.3VDC. New. 105C. Unknown origin. Cap D = 0.22uf 50VDC. New. 85C. Unknown origin.

Spreadsheet with test results and graphs:

Cap A provided the initial surprise. The ESR was so low that the ESR meter reading was a constant 0.03 ohms above 40C. I would guess(tm) that this is a problem with the meter except that the meter reads my nichrome test wire, with less then 0.03 ohms quite nicely.

Cap B is a known defective capacitor with a bulging top that had not quite blown open yet (i.e. no leaks). The starting ESR is well above normal. This produced almost a 10:1 decrease in ESR as Phil Allison predicted.

Cap C was my attempt to find a cap that would give reasonable ESR values that would not produce the same lower limit problem as Cap A. It was better, but also hit bottom at 0.03 ohm. It's difficult to tell from the curve, but extrapolating from the starting values, it might have produced a 10:1 decrease in ESR if the meter had cooperated.

Cap D was another attempt to get reasonable ESR values and which produced another surprise: Since the ESR was well above the previous attempts, I would have expected another 10:1 decrease in ESR. Instead, it only decreased about 1.5:1. This suggests that higher voltage electrolytics have a more constant ESR, but more testing will be needed to verify that guess.

So, Phil is mostly correct. ESR does drop 10:1 in some electrolytic capacitors. Since power dissipation is directly proportional to the ESR (assuming a constant ripple current), a typical motherboard electrolytic capacitor will internally dissipate about 1/10th the power at maximum temperature as it would at room temperature. This explains an odd phenomenon that I've seen on computers with bulging caps on the motherboard. They'll sometimes run just fine when hot, but refuse to turn on function if allowed to cool. Also, I haven't seen any of this in the capacitor lifetime calculations.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann
Loading thread data ...

"Arfa Daily"

** Would you be thinking of low value electros ( like 1 or 2.2 uF at 400V ) that are used to " kick start" SMPS ?

Notoriously short lived, their failure goes un-noticed until the unit is left unplugged for a time.

Plagued many TVs and most VCRs right through the 80 and early 90s.

The same dopey problem is causing havoc with LED tube lighting right now - cos the Chinese have yet to discover it.

Parallels the Yellow Glue disaster nicely.

... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

It's all too common with servers and machines that are powered on all the time. Last week, I had to deal with an office computer like that. Powered on 24x7 and nothing wrong. However, it was full of dust, so I thought it could use a cleaning. I turned it off, blew out the dust (outside), and it refused to turn on. When I tore apart the ATX power supply, there were three obvious bulging caps.

While I had the cover off, I decided to run a little test. I gave the PCB a blast from a heat gun to get it up to temperature and found that it will turn on. I have several cheap ATX testers, one of which has a built in load for the +5V and +12V lines. I connected an oscilloscope to these lines to see if there was any ripple. Both were fairly clean (I forgot the numbers) but as the power supply cooled down, the +5V noise started ominously increasing. The PG (power good) light was oddly thrashing. When I turned it off, it didn't want to turn on again. It was too old and ugly to repair, so I just installed a replacement.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

It's not just the power supplies that have that problem.

We have a selective soldering machine, CNC controlled, using a pc with a no longer available video card.

Ran fine for several years when the machine was on 24 hours per day. Then when work slowed, and the machine was off for several days, the video would act up, then settle down and work fine. Time to run properly took longer and longer, till one day, it wouldn't display at all.

Factory had no replacement boards available, and in fact had quit using them because of problems. We replaced all the electrolytic caps with ones close to the original value. Had bags full! And the board has performed correctly ever since.

Paul

Reply to
Paul Drahn

Has anyone tried one of these $18 ESR meters?

formatting link

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

produced another surprise: Since the ESR was well above the previous attempts, I would have expected another 10:1 decrease in ESR. Instead, it only decreased about 1.5:1. This suggests that higher voltage electrolytics have a more constant ESR, but more testing will be needed to verify that guess. " It might not be so much of a surprise. Do you happen to know what frequency the ESR meter uses ? Thing is, if they choose the frequency too high there will be some error due to ESL in the larger cap values. Too low and the ES R of a 0.22uF will inherently read high because of the Xc component.

In this case you might not be getting empirical data but rather a more "usa ble" figure for servicing as that is the intended application of most ESR m eters.

Granted, the higher ESR of a lower value such as a 0.22 might be well accep table for use in real circuitry because of course they would not expect it to handle much ripple current. Well not so much current for the obvious rea son. If a low value like that is ever used for filtering it is more likely a local cap near a linear regulator to stop oscillation. It would never be the main filtering on a power supply line unless it was extremely low curre nt, and unless they wanted the source to rise and drop fast, a higher value cap would likely be chosen most of the time anyway, like a 1 uF or somethi ng, or anything they are already using a bunch of to get a better price.

Actually, if you want to get persnickety about it (that is not a bad thing) you could run the test with a sine wave generator and a scope or voltmeter . It's not difficult, and you could isolate the ESL component completely by using a set of frequencies that keep the Xc to a minimal value.

And now, I might just have to do that myself because I would like to know h ow temperature affects ESL. I would bet it does, and depending on the frequ ency applied might throw off the ESR measurement as would Xc. You are talki ng from 1,800 down to 0.22, that is like a one to eight thousand ratio. The re must be some effect but I am not going to figure it out right now, espec ially not knowing the frequency applied to the DUT.

Reply to
jurb6006

Incidentally, years ago I designed an ESR meter but was too lazy to actuall y build it. My scheme to get a wider range of accurate ESR values for diffe rent value caps was to apply a square wave to the DUT. I had two scales dis criminated for high and low frequency and the square wave was positive goin g only so it could detect a short easily. I chose a low amplitude like a co uple hundred millivolts to prevent the short/leakage detect from triggering if the polarity was wrong, or if there were semis in circuit that would co nduct. Of course if Schottky rectifiers were used it might still false trig ger, but then it was just a matter of the user reversing the leads.

I used a pretty low inpedance so that it would read fast, and made it so di scharging wasn't necessary. My main concern was mass cap testing at the tim e as I knew plenty of techs that just check all the caps regardless of the symptom and where they were in the circuit. I don't do that.

In fact I don't even replace all the "bad" ones either, as some are more cr itical than others. Some are very uncritical. The engineer might use a 100 uF where a 22 would work just fine, but they get a price break using the 10

0, on all 100s in each unit of course. Basically if there is no AC across t he cap when it is working and it is not leaking electrolyte, it does not ne ed to be changed.

Hillbilly ? Fine, but market conditions have made me this way. The only thi ng that will stop me from ever pushing down the bottom line is recalls, or safety issues.

Reply to
jurb6006

100KHz. That's also one of the frequencies at which ESR is specified on the data capacitor sheets.

It's not an issue, but let's see. I had about 30cm of #18 wire leads connected to the capacitor under test. That's about 0.43uH. At 100Khz, that's about 25 ohms. That would wreck any measurement were it not for a feature in the Bob Parker ESR meter that eliminates connection and cable resistance and reactance. When I first press the on/off button, it reads the uncalibrated reactance, including the what is contributed by the leads and connections. As I vaguely recall, it was about 25 ohms. I then short the capacitor leads, and push the on/off button again. The meter now reads zero. When I unshort the capacitor leads, the meter now reads the relative reactance, which is just the ESR, and without the cable and connector contribution.

Bingo. That explains part of what happened. At 100Khz, 0.22uf is 7.2 ohms. What the meter is reading is the vector sum of the 7.2 ohm reactance and a fairly small ESR value. The result is the vector sum of the capacitive reactance and the ESR. To get rid of this error, I could run the test again, this time measuring the capacitance of this capacitor. I could then vector subtract the calculated capacitive reactance from the measured value leaving only the ESR.

More of the same:

Well, it's certainly usable for large value capacitors, where the capacitive reactance is orders of magnitude smaller than the ESR.

Yep, a vector impedance meter or network analyzer would do the trick. However, I'm not sure how well they would perform with extremely small values of ESR and if they could be used to test caps in circuit.

My guess(tm) is that it would be dominated by the lead inductance.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

"Arfa Daily"

** Like the UC3842N ?

** So you are doing warranty work on home studio powered speakers that run 24/7 ?

** The PSU board in the " Alesis M1 Active" - right ?

Where the problem is not due to bad electros at all.

But a 2W resistor that almost touches the cap and heats it to a high temp for 8,760 hours per year.

Wot a piece of garbage.

... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

** Not true for Bob's design.

Even large can electros with bolts on top have ESL values of about 20nH = much the same value for nearly all electros.

At 100kHz, this results in a reactance of 0.01 ohms = the resolution of Bob's ESR meter.

** Bobs meter is NOT suitable for low value caps ( under 1uF ) or any cap type except aluminium electros.
** Most low value electros have high ESRs ( like 20 or 30 ohms) and this saves the day. Tantalums are an exception, but as they do not have an issue with rising ESR it is irrelevant to the purpose of Bob's meter.

.... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

"Jeff Liebermann = Idiot "

** You should used a twisted pair of leads, figure 8 twin lead or even co-ax, which form transmission lines at high frequencies and series L all but vanishes. The residual before zeroing is then less than 1ohm.

My god you are a f****it .

... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

Good idea. So, I tried it. I get between 0.3 and 0.6 ohms residual reading. The problem is that the BNC connectors are not the best DC connection possible. Wiggle the connectors and the reading changes. That's why I soldered almost everything on my insulated hookup wire version.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Ooops. That should be 0.38uH and 0.24 ohms.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

I think to be properly persnickety you are going to have to change the vert ical scale on those graphs from "ESR" to "impedance".

I have a bunch more to say on this but it is late and I am half drunk. Off work tomorrow...

I wonder what kind of readings you might see out of things like motor start or run caps, or speaker crossover caps.

In fact the run cap in my AC unit took a shit last year and I had to replac e it, after that the summer electric usage went down. I wonder if I could g o around selling cap jobs to homeowners and claim honestly that it will sav e them money in the next few seasons.

It would also prevent unscrupulous assholes from selling them a whole new u nit. At first I priced new condensing units and it is hard as hell to get t hem with R22 these days. And then there is some doubt about how well it wou ld work with the original evaporator and cap tube or expansion valve, which might mean tearing the whole damn thing down.

Cap is about twenty bucks, charge a hundred for the job, lasts five years a nd almost guaranteed to save them that in the next five seasons ? Now that would be some serious math.

I am lazy when it coes to that. I would like easy ways do calculate Xc, Xl and do vector math. there is probably a way out ther eI just haven't found it. In fact I would be happy with a reactance/resonance table. Damn, with a computer it could be zoomable and just eliminate all this.....

You know in the old BASIC days I had programs for that. Also for calculatin g new displacements of engines bored out, carberator requiremnets, all that cool shit. But I did it once and minded my syntax, and didn't have to do i t again.

Until I fell behind on programming. Well I was never really ahead, I just m ade it do a few things I wanted it to do because I used to design things he re abnd there and build them.

I got a bone to pick with time, I lack my ambition, something took it ! Cal l the electron police.....

Reply to
jurb6006

Don't you love that they never bother to mount the LCDs in these designs?

The original, or the newer one? I have the original, bought as a kit.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Nope. The correct measurement would be dissipation factor: which is a conglomeration of the resitive part of the impedance (ESR), and the capacitive reactance part (1/2PiFC). For this exercise, I'm only interested in the part that actually produces heat, which is ESR. The reactive parts generates no heat and can therefore be ignored.

Alcohol should best be used for removing solder flux residue.

Dunno. I don't work on speakers and the motor caps are really obvious when they need replacement.

In the bad old daze, I used nomograms for all that. These days, I just Google for a suitable Javscript based online calculator. I also have reactance and resonance calcs programmed into my HP41CX and other HP programmable calculators. However, the online version is easer to read and use.

I don't have much trouble programming for myself and on my own projects. However, I don't like programming and am not very good at it. To avoid dissapointing friends and customers that want me to program, I plea ignorance.

Sorry, but the electron police had its funding redirected by the government so that the NSA can built the ultimate telephone directory.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

The data is rather interesting, and somewhat revealing. It occurred to me to wonder what the actual leakage current, and capacitance was for similiar conditions in each case.

peter

Reply to
Peter

LOL.

The NSA Yellow Pages.

Reply to
tm

I was going to do that, just to see what happened. However, it was midnight and I had just enough time to write it up before I fell over. I need to measure the capacitance over temperature in order to remove the capacitive reactance from the ESR measurements on the small value cap (Cap-D).

I don't consider leakage current to be significant at the voltages found in computer power supplies and motherboards, but testing might prove otherwise.

Application Guide Aluminum Electrolytic Capacitors:

formatting link
DC Leakage Current (DCL)

DC Leakage Current is the DC current flowing through the capacitor with the rated voltage applied. The value of leakage current depends on the voltage applied, the charging period and capacitor temperature.

DCL Method of measurement

Measure leakage current at 25 °C with the rated voltage applied through a protective resistance of 1000 Ohm in series with the capacitor in the measuring circuit. Five minutes after the application of voltage, the leakage current is not to exceed the maximum value indicated in the specification.

The 5 minutes delay is to reduce the effects of forming current and dielectric absorption. There are some typical graphs of leakage versus temperature and voltage on Pg 2.191. I guess the easy way to measure current is to just measure the voltage across the 1000 ohm resistor and compute the current.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

This?

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* As a matter of particular interest to Michael T, I hung the faulty one across the little Chinese component tester that I mentioned elsewhere in the thread. That made it 42 ohms, so pretty good agreement with Bob's meter. But what was also of note was the fact that the tester showed it to have a value of 44.6 uF, so not far from its nominal 47uF, even though it was clearly well out of spec on its ESR. This underlines what we have discussed on here before in that you cannot determine the condition of an electrolytic by measuring its capacitance alone. It has to have its ESR checked to get a meaningful result, and that is best, and most conveniently, done with a proper in-circuit ESR meter, that's designed for the job.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

I've seen very high capacitance readings on failing electrolytics, on some cheap meters. About 20 years ago, I went through my inventory of caps and chuck any electrolytics that read higher than specs. When I got the ESR meter and built it, I tossed another 20%. Being in my 60s, some parts were made in the '40s since I had bought out a number of old shops in the '70s & '80s. ;-)

The cap you described was just starting to fail. First, the ESR starts to rise, then the capacitance drops as it dries out, even more. I used to do some failure analysis on components at one plant.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.