Fluke 189 with leaking surface mount supercap (also Fluke 287, Fluke 289)

[mimmus78]

I think this "built" date is relative to the build date of the boot loader (when it was compiled) not to the meter "motherboard".

[BravoV]

That is weird, what is the current cal count ? If its still 1 (one), then this must be strange, manufactured in 2010 but with 2013 factory cal date is quite long time. 

Are you sure you're not mistaken by the bootloader's date at the info screen

Calibration Date: 25/04/13
Calibration Counter: 1
Board ID: 3
The rest is same as per your screen...

   I'm DOPE!!!
The 'built' part is for the 2 liner... "ARM bootloader..... built 08:38:05, Jun 25 2010" 

Well, just see at the bright side, at least you now have few months to enjoy the shiny ultra cap before its starting to poo out around at the outer shell like mine.    

[quarks]

after watching Martins video

I had a look in my 289 and it is also having some leakage on the capacitor 
Although that looks like an easy to fix issue, I must say, that is not what I expected to see in my Fluke. 

[Terabyte2007]

Looks like I am cracking open my 289 this weekend!

[CSmith]

I opened up two of my Fluke 189's and two of my Fluke 289's, and their supercaps were all in pristine condition despite the passage of time, so some of the supercap's must be up to the challenge. I wonder if it is a supercap manufacturing quality issue such that there were bad batches, or whether there might be environmental influences that help spur them to go bad.

[BravoV]

I opened up two of my Fluke 189's and two of my Fluke 289's, and their supercaps were all in pristine condition despite the passage of time, so some of the supercap's must be up to the challenge. I wonder if it is a supercap manufacturing quality issue such that there were bad batches, or whether there might be environmental influences that help spur them to go bad.

Interesting, how old are those 189s and 289s ?

[CSmith]

I opened up two of my Fluke 189's and two of my Fluke 289's, and their supercaps were all in pristine condition despite the passage of time, so some of the supercap's must be up to the challenge. I wonder if it is a supercap manufacturing quality issue such that there were bad batches, or whether there might be environmental influences that help spur them to go bad.

Interesting, how old are those 189s and 289s ?

By purchase date, the 189's were acquired in 2002/12/05 and 2003/06/05.
By initial calibration date, the 289's were first calibrated in 2008/5/15 and 2009/6/15.

[mjlorton]

After posting a video on the issue I emailed Duane (Fluke). He has just responded with the following:

On 1/6/2014 6:40 PM, Smith, Duane wrote:> We are aware of the failures of this particular part. We are working with the vendor in hopes of determining why these particular parts are leaking.
> Customers who have units either where the cap has failed or experienced leakage can get their units repaired under warranty at their closest Fluke service facility.
>   Since this part is soldered to the pcb, customer replacement is not recommended as it will void the units warranty.
>
> The capacitor specification says that the capacitor should draw <150 uA after 10 minutes.
> If there were one measurement to take, it would be to measure battery draw with the unit off after applying  the battery voltage for 10 minutes. The
> current draw on failed caps will rise after 10 minutes.
>
> The good news is the supercap is only in the unit to maintain the units date and time. It has no other purpose. It does not support instrument memory or logged /saved readings.
> After we hear back from our component vendor we will determine next steps needed if any but for the short-term customers who own units affected by this part can have it replaced
>   under warranty through Fluke service centers worldwide.
>
> Cheers, Duane

[ModemHead]

Thanks for looking into this and posting the response.  That explains why I have to reset the clock every time I change batteries, but never lose the logged data.

[BravoV]

Martin, thanks for the update, really appreciate it ! 

>
> The capacitor specification says that the capacitor should draw <150 uA after 10 minutes.
> If there were one measurement to take, it would be to measure battery draw after 10 minutes. The
> current draw on failed caps will rise after 10 minutes.
>

Great info ! Now, I'm going to measure mine.

Curious on the time, why 10 minutes ?     Edit : NVM, found it in the cap datasheet.

[Huluvu]

> The good news is the supercap is only in the unit to maintain the units date and time. It has no other purpose. It does not support instrument memory or logged /saved readings.

What about removing the supercap permanently from the Meter?
I rarely use the logging capability.

[BravoV]

> The good news is the supercap is only in the unit to maintain the units date and time. It has no other purpose. It does not support instrument memory or logged /saved readings.

What about removing the supercap permanently from the Meter?
I rarely use the logging capability.

Or maybe replace it with just ordinary lower capacitance cap, but good and reliable one ?

[jucole]

Someone posted a link to a Panasonic datasheet with what looked like to be the same super-cap. type;   in the datasheet it specified the max. current draw to be 10uA and just wondered what the draw was on the Flukes and also the operating voltage;  there seem to be 2 types which look very similar ; the EN and EM types but have different properties;  for example the EN has a current limit of 10uA and can be reflowed upto 250c for 5 secs according the information at the start of the document but the EM type seems like it can only be reflowed to 240c, but yet has no max. current draw specified.  It's interesting to note that the specification for the EN type mentioned the reflow of 240c but that conflicts with the information at the beginning of the document.

Did someone get the EN and EM types mixed up maybe?  Or maybe they reflowed the EM type to the EN temperature described at the top of the document?

Looking at Mikes DMM, with the wide tabs it looks like a Type A,  but is that an EN or EM?

[bernroth]

Just for the statistics: The problem is not only with the multimeters, the Fluke 1653 installation testers are affected too by this problem. I suspect the newer models 1653B/1654B using the same cap!

I recently bought two Fluke 1653 installation testers and while checking them internally I found exactly the same type of surface mount capacitors on the front panel leaking like hell. The testers are not the newest but honestly this must not happen.
I replaced them with two TH supercaps (rated 0.25F@5V) and everything is back working normal.

[mjlorton]

Further feedback from Duane / Fluke:
"As a follow up to this discussion, I've attached the datasheet for the supercap. If you review Note 1 toward the bottom of the page, it makes note of "brown deposited materials found around the sealing area" and the fact that this material will not affect the electrical performance of the part. So, in essence in some situations this leakage could be found as normal under some environmental conditions. Regardless, we plan on still working with the vendor to clarify this further."

[jucole]

I've attached the datasheet for the supercap.

Thanks Martin for clarifying the actual part number used.

[BravoV]

Even though its harmless, is it fair to expect from a high end Fluke's DMM series that use component that doesn't poo ? 

Its very disappointing, especially they already knew it from the beginning. 

[eb4eqa]

Hi all,

I found leackage on the top of the cap in my 289 (5 years old). I simply removed it since I don't change batteries that frequently but I do want to prevent further damage to the PCB.

I use eneloops in it and they last for a long time with the use I make of the meter. I am a big fan of those batteries, highly recommended.

Thanks from bringing this up,
Roberto EB4EQA

[CSmith]

I really do appreciate Fluke's continued use of common AA batteries in their handheld meters, especially compared to Agilent's (Keysight?) use of AAA batteries that do not last very long at all in these more sophisticated meters.

[ron]

What corrosion?  What "corrosive" material is in a cap?  Remember that the original poster thought it was a battery cell.

I just checked my oldest 189 and sure enough the cap had obviously leaked.  I used a tooth pick to remove the most of the dried brown crud (Latin term for dielectric?) and wiped the remaining residue off with a q-tip dampened with IPA.  Looks clean now.  Under a 20x loupe, I see no pitting or "corrosion" on the cap case.   The residue is harmless except it indicates a failed or failing cap.
Yes, this cap has a problem, but it isn't going to corrode the pcb or anything else.
Don't panic. 

[BravoV]

What corrosion?  What "corrosive" material is in a cap?  Remember that the original poster thought it was a battery cell.

I just checked my oldest 189 and sure enough the cap had obviously leaked.  I used a tooth pick to remove the most of the dried brown crud (Latin term for dielectric?) and wiped the remaining residue off with a q-tip dampened with IPA.  Looks clean now.  Under a 20x loupe, I see no pitting or "corrosion" on the cap case.   The residue is harmless except it indicates a failed or failing cap.
Yes, this cap has a problem, but it isn't going to corrode the pcb or anything else.
Don't panic. 

If cap already oozed out so many of it's internal material, let alone this goo if its harmless, but then this raised few questions :

• Does the leakage current still at < 150uA as new one ?
• If the internal leakage is increasing, then how much ? Will the cap suck the battery charge significantly even the DMM is at OFF position, since its basically connected all the time to the battery.

Still don't have time to measure my 287s off current. 

[ron]

If cap already oozed out so many of it's internal material, let alone this goo if its harmless, but then this raised few questions :

• Does the leakage current still at < 150uA as new one ?
• If the internal leakage is increasing, then how much ? Will the cap suck the battery charge significantly even the DMM is at OFF position, since its basically connected all the time to the battery.

Still don't have time to measure my 287s off current. 

The cap apparently failed open(or nearly open), as would be expected.  Current draw in off position is <70uA.  This meter does forget time when batteries are removed -- a non issue for me. 
I checked another 189 and 2 289's and they are OK.  Using enerloops, battery life in all of my X89 meters is much better than spec.

[SoundTech-LG]

Hi,

I'll have to tear into it and check, but I bought a 189 off ebay recently. When it arrived it was dead. Replaced the batteries, and it came right up.
Curious now if the supercap is the reason.

[SoundTech-LG]

Had the creeping crud...   removed the cap entirely. Cleaned up the mess on the board. Not sure I will be installing a replacement. Never use logging storage. Oh, date/time...  maybe I will replace!

[true]

> The good news is the supercap is only in the unit to maintain the units date and time. It has no other purpose. It does not support instrument memory or logged /saved readings.

What about removing the supercap permanently from the Meter?
I rarely use the logging capability.

Or maybe replace it with just ordinary lower capacitance cap, but good and reliable one ?

I wrote this earlier in the thread, but I did just this and it works fine.