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

[nukie]

I have two 187 and a 189 of different manufacture batch. No leaky caps. No battery drain. Battery life has been great with Eneloops. I never have to worry about it.

[BravoV]

I have two 187 and a 189 of different manufacture batch. No leaky caps. No battery drain. Battery life has been great with Eneloops. I never have to worry about it.

I thought 187 doesn't have that cap ? See post #15.

[nukie]

Yes I know 187s have no caps, what I mean was the 187s and 189 have similar battery consumption and I have replaced my 189 cap. It wasn't leaky or anything but it sure looks pretty rusty when I  got it last time.

[BravoV]

Is that the new replaced cap ? I can see there is a (M) Mashusita logo on it, are you using the same type ?

Isn't that Mashusita brand product is no longer produced and replaced by Panasonic brand ?

[nukie]

I bought it from rockby.com.au many years ago but it seems they don't have it anymore.

I bought some Panasonic FM, FR caps from Digikey recently they are still using the "M" logo. I have some bigger  EC series caps have the full "Panasonic" printed on them but the M logo would save them printing cost on caps that cost a few cents.

I found exact replacement here for $1
http://www.westfloridacomponents.com/J544APK02/0.1uF+5.5V+Memory+Backup+Capacitor+Panasonic+EECS0HD104.html
Disregard the specs on the webpage it's entered incorrectly the part no. ending with 104 is 0.1F

Capacitance: 0.10uF would not be a supercap. It would be a very poorcap.

[smoothtalker]

Also there is no guarantee that Fluke will replace it with better cap than this problematic one, and even though you still can make the same claim again in next few years, meanwhile you suffer from the high battery drain while the cap is rotting in those period.   

My relatively new 287 with date code April 2013 already shows the early rotting sign at the cap. 

Dave should really do a video on this issue. Fluke needs to do something. It's actually quite a shame to Fluke's reputation that this is happening.

[CSmith]

I have the Fluke 189, and I bought the "upgraded" Fluke 289 when it came out. Am I alone in that I find myself preferring the Fluke 189? I believe that I find the boot time of the Fluke 289 to be excessive.

[BravoV]

Also there is no guarantee that Fluke will replace it with better cap than this problematic one, and even though you still can make the same claim again in next few years, meanwhile you suffer from the high battery drain while the cap is rotting in those period.   

My relatively new 287 with date code April 2013 already shows the early rotting sign at the cap. 

Dave should really do a video on this issue. Fluke needs to do something. It's actually quite a shame to Fluke's reputation that this is happening.

Agree, and the worst part is this problem is affecting Fluke's high-end models which I think deserved more attentions, especially 287 or 289 are belong to top tier models, and they are not cheap. 

Already raised this issue to Dave at my post #14, and also PM-ed him, but no reply yet though.

A few more similar PMs from some of you that have the same concern to Dave probably will raise his attention, just a suggestion.

Also I think this issue alone has good and enough materials to make single video out of it, especially involves more details like measuring the off current, ultra cap leak, or ask people who are affected to do the same measurements to gather much larger data and get a clue what is happening and etc.

If I had a chance, I will measure the off state current consumption on my both 287s to see if there are big differences, and hope not. 

[retiredcaps]

Add Fluke 1653 with potential bad Panasonic gold EN cap to list as per

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/fluke-1653-installation-tester-repair-help/

[smoothtalker]

Someone needs to tell Fluke about this! I can't find any contact details on Fluke website after they change it.

[BravoV]

Someone needs to tell Fluke about this! I can't find any contact details on Fluke website after they change it.

Don't think they will give a damn. 

If friends ask me about 280 series, looking at current situation, I will tell them to go Agilent straight a away.

Looking at the past experience with 87V model which was vulnerable to GSM phone signal, that Dave raised up while ago, looks like Fluke reacted quickly. Again, I think raising this to Dave and hopefully he will consider to make a video on this once he sees enough people are "whining" about it. 

[apelly]

Don't think they will give a damn.

Correct.

[smoothtalker]

Someone needs to tell Fluke about this! I can't find any contact details on Fluke website after they change it.

Don't think they will give a damn. 

If friends ask me about 280 series, looking at current situation, I will tell them to go Agilent straight a away.

Looking at the past experience with 87V model which was vulnerable to GSM phone signal, that Dave raised up while ago, looks like Fluke reacted quickly. Again, I think raising this to Dave and hopefully he will consider to make a video on this once he sees enough people are "whining" about it. 

Actually Fluke took quite a while over the GSM issue. Don't seem very sincere though. Fluke seems to be becoming more passive in everything recently.

I do have contact of Fluke's Marcom manager. Unfortunately she is not related to engineering. We need your powers Dave! Where are you Dave!

[alm]

Has anyone actually shipped a meter with leaking cap to Fluke and was refused repair?

[Nermash]

Maybe we should ask Martin from mjlorton channel to do a video about this... He has a 287 which is old enough to demonstrate this issue.

Last time it took Fluke arround 18 months to issue a firmware update for 287 (problem causing shutdown when logging, in presence of high intensity IR source around data port).

This would probably take the same amount of time, and the solution would probably be the same as with the 87V GSM issue: "send it for calibration and we will fix it for free".

[BravoV]

The difficulties, cost and resources needed in fixing issues just by updating the firmware, is nothing when compared to fixing an issue that needs Fluke to replace that sick cap from complaining owners, maybe also unsold products withdrawal that are affected, new cap thorough testing, procurement and etc. 

[retiredcaps]

Does someone with a non gmail/yahoo/hotmail (in case Fluke blocks these addresses) address want to try contacting

duane.smith@fluke.com

He is Senior Sale Support at Fluke.  I have seen a lot of his articles.  His linkedin profile.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/duane-smith/11/434/436

[neslekkim]

fluke didn't block my gmail when contacting them atleast, I mailed them because i got my 289 with and note to register for getting probes, the link at fluke was dead, but they responded, and month later I got my probes.

[winluk]

Just had a look in my 289 - no corrosion on the cap.
I bought it in mid 2013 but the setup menu / info says it was built 25 Jun 2010 but calibrated 25 Apr 2013.
The board is Rev. 015.

Cheers

[retiredcaps]

Does someone with a non gmail/yahoo/hotmail (in case Fluke blocks these addresses) address want to try contacting

duane.smith@fluke.com

Martin did a video and will send an email to Duane.

[Huluvu]

Just watched Martins Video and checked the behavior of my Fluke 189 which shows the same residues on the super-cap surface.
I found this remark in the Datasheet from Panasonic (page 20):

7. Brown extraction
Brown extraction may occur around the sealing part depending on use conditions. This extraction is electrically nonconductive. Therefore, it does not influence in the electric characteristics.

For myself I will monitor the part periodically if something changed, but it is not that dramatically as described by the OP
i'm more concerned about leaking batteries by storing a meter for a long time period.

[mimmus78]

Mine 287 is from 2007 or 2008 and supercap is corroded.

I think this should be changed ...

[BravoV]

Just had a look in my 289 - no corrosion on the cap.
I bought it in mid 2013 but the setup menu / info says it was built 25 Jun 2010 but calibrated 25 Apr 2013.
The board is Rev. 015.

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 ?

Also "assuming" the marking at the cap represents the cap's date code, then your cap there is quite new (made at 2013), while at my 287 is manufactured in April 2013 (check post #14), and with the cap's date code at 2012.

Here my 287 info screen and it's box which stated its manufactured at April 2013, and yes, both serial no (blurred here  ) are identical at the meter and at the box.

[SeanB]

Bootloader build is the firmware build date, it would have been programmed later than that, and the cal date says it was finally assembled and tested probably the day before and then left running overnight for burn in prior to calibration. AFAIK Fluke uses an ATE bed to do cal, so the date would be the time of manufacture within a week at most before, and the first cal is the factory one.

[winluk]

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"