Author Topic: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance  (Read 3742 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« on: May 03, 2024, 05:13:53 pm »
Hi!

I have a lot of PCBs to solder and some have quite large ground planes and I found my trusty Hakko FX-951 was struggling sometimes.

I thought I'll save time if I buy more professional soldering station, so after spending time on YouTube and reading forums I bought Metcal MX-5210 and a wide range of original tips.

I don't know if I am doing something wrong or there is some setting I am missing, but so far I find this iron to perform worse than my Hakko. It struggles where Hakko doesn't and I see no improvement at all, in fact it is worse when it comes to those problematic solder joints.
I did manage to solder one board but it took me twice as much time and I had to redo some solder joints.

So I understand the digit on the right is showing how much power goes into the tip. When it is idle it shows 5. When I stick the tip into the brass wool it goes to 70 something quickly and maxes out at 80.
When I am touching the solder joint it is very erratic like jumps between 5 and 12, sometimes goes to 20.
When I try to solder something that has a large ground plane, it never goes over 22-23 and it struggles to melt solder.

Do I have a dud?  :-//

Thanks!
« Last Edit: May 03, 2024, 05:15:33 pm by palindrome »
 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2024, 09:02:38 pm »
Definitely will perform better than the Hakko.
- Did you purchase new tips or are these used tips? Tips can partially fail but still heat up, so if they are used they might be bad.
- What is the part number on the tip you are using? There are different temperature ranges, usually you want to use the 700 series (eg STTC-136)
- Press the button on the front so you just get the "box animation" thing on just the port you are using, if its on both sides then the power is shared among both ports.

My guess its a dud tip. If not, get out a power meter and see how much power it draws when starting up.

https://www.metcal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Metcal_CV-MX-Cartridges-Catalogue_EN.pdf
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline armandine2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2024, 09:23:23 pm »
Hi!

I I bought Metcal MX-5210 and a wide range of original tips.



I bought the bigger Metcal after using the smaller for a few years, and I was expecting more too.
Maybe it is the tips - given these actually set the temp.
Funny, the things you have the hardest time parting with are the things you need the least - Bob Dylan
 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2024, 09:41:06 pm »
- Yes, everything is new.

- I tried to solder using SMTC-0185 (the same size and shape I typically use with Hakko). I also tried STTC-125, STTC-136 but they had similar issue with heating up, but once I got solder to melt, they'd burn the flux and generally joint would look pretty bad, like insufficiently heated but also burnt if that makes sense.

I also had a smaller tip STTC-128 but that one would struggle with everything. It would take ages for it to melt solder.

- I tried that, I am pretty sure I've only used the port I had the hand piece connected to.

I am using K100LD Kester Lead Free solder.

When I am using Hakko, it is set to 350 degree.
 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2024, 09:45:28 pm »
I bought the bigger Metcal after using the smaller for a few years, and I was expecting more too.
Maybe it is the tips - given these actually set the temp.

Maybe it's my technique. But certainly it feels like it is underpowered. I had similar experience when soldering with cheap soldering iron.
 

Offline shabaz

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 213
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2024, 09:53:46 pm »
The unit may be faulty. In comparison, here is a JBC station with a small (1mm) tip, using a small 40W iron handle, on copper ground plane, you can see that the solder flows smoothly on the copper. Metcal performance is for sure at least similar. Are you not seeing a similar level of performance as shown in the video?



 

Online Smokey

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2668
  • Country: us
  • Not An Expert
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2024, 10:09:02 pm »
There are some crazy hot Metcal tips if that's what you are after.  It does take a little more effort in tip selection than having an adjustable iron base station, but just keep going up in temp if you need more. 

For my 0402 size tip, I usually use STTC-122.  But I also use leaded solder. 
« Last Edit: May 03, 2024, 10:11:12 pm by Smokey »
 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2024, 11:09:18 pm »
- Yes, everything is new.

- I tried to solder using SMTC-0185 (the same size and shape I typically use with Hakko). I also tried STTC-125, STTC-136 but they had similar issue with heating up, but once I got solder to melt, they'd burn the flux and generally joint would look pretty bad, like insufficiently heated but also burnt if that makes sense.

I also had a smaller tip STTC-128 but that one would struggle with everything. It would take ages for it to melt solder.

- I tried that, I am pretty sure I've only used the port I had the hand piece connected to.

I am using K100LD Kester Lead Free solder.

When I am using Hakko, it is set to 350 degree.

OK if everything is new then its odd.

If I use a STTC-137 (1.8mm), which is a bit smaller than the STTC-136 (2.5mm), on a ground plane I'll see 30-35 on the power meter. The smaller the tip the less power can pass through it in real world use. I don't know how accurate the display meter is though, which is where a kill-a-watt power meter would come in handy.

Can you try: check that RF port of handpiece is fully seated into the connector on the base? You'll have to unscrew the outer shell, push to fully seat, then screw in the outer shell a bit. Just finger tight is fine.
Could also check if tip and connector in the handpiece is clean, tip is fully seated. Handpiece can unscrew apart into two halves, you probably know that already.

350C is 662F which is closer to the low temp tips, STTC-0. The burning part might be related to not being used to the higher temperature, but obviously something is still wrong here. Maybe base is defective.
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2024, 01:47:47 pm »
I did another test today. I disconnected the hand piece and connected again, now to the second port.

Then I got my Hakko side by side with the same size 2mm tip.

I tried to solder a connector. Hakko struggled a little, but did solder it fine. Metcal on the other hand couldn't solder it. It was like intermittently melting solder and I was unable to form a joint and had to correct it with Hakko.

It seems like it cannot detect I am soldering and when I touch the joint it keeps rapidly switching between "Ready" and "Power".

Looks like I am going to send it back.
 

Offline shapirus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1580
  • Country: ua
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2024, 01:52:26 pm »
Have you checked the actual temperature of the tip with a thermometer?
 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2024, 02:04:20 pm »
Unfortunately I don't have a thermometer, but the tip is hot. When I touch it with the solder wire, it melts it right away.

The problem is when I try to solder it's like doesn't seem to have enough power. For instance it will melt the solder on half of the joint, but other half is solid, whereas Hakko will melt it like butter.

edit:
When I changed the tip to STTC-136 (2mm chisel), it did work considerably better, but still it was unable to heat solder, pad and connector enough for solder to flow through the pad most of the time. I had to correct all joints with Hakko.

When I touch the joint with the tip sometimes it doesn't register I want to solder so I have to wait several seconds before it starts delivering power to the tip and it is intermittent.

The smallest one I have STTC-126 would just stay at 5 and not melt anything.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2024, 02:41:31 pm by palindrome »
 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2024, 03:51:45 pm »
I requested a return from the distributor. Pity it's a long weekend here, so it's going to take a while to get the money back.

I'll look for a different iron in this price range.
 

Offline tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7496
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2024, 04:56:40 pm »
I bought the bigger Metcal after using the smaller for a few years, and I was expecting more too.
Maybe it is the tips - given these actually set the temp.

Maybe it's my technique. But certainly it feels like it is underpowered. I had similar experience when soldering with cheap soldering iron.
You need the right tip for lead free solder. The tip sets the temperature.
 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2024, 05:14:00 pm »
My understanding from the datasheet is that SMTC-0185 would have 357 °C temp, whereas the STTC-136 would have 413 °C. My Hakko is set to 350 °C.
The tip that works at 413 °C apart from struggling to melt solder, also burnt the flux.
 

Offline armandine2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2024, 08:50:02 pm »
Hi!




So I understand the digit on the right is showing how much power goes into the tip. When it is idle it shows 5. When I stick the tip into the brass wool it goes to 70 something quickly and maxes out at 80.
When I am touching the solder joint it is very erratic like jumps between 5 and 12, sometimes goes to 20.
When I try to solder something that has a large ground plane, it never goes over 22-23 and it struggles to melt solder.

Do I have a dud?  :-//

Thanks!

That isn't so much different to mine

,,rechecked today, a high thermal demand hand-piece with chisel cartridge HCV-7CH0018S (413 deg C) couldn't melt solder on a coin? - may be another cartridge would  :palm:
 
for the record, my MX-PS5200 is using version 1.37
Funny, the things you have the hardest time parting with are the things you need the least - Bob Dylan
 

Offline loki42

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 312
  • Country: au
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2024, 11:58:06 pm »
I haven't tried the newer ones but my mx 500 is plenty powerful enough for anything.  Also the no screen etc to go wrong.
 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2024, 12:34:32 am »
The model I have has been made this year. Also version 1.37.
 

Online Smokey

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2668
  • Country: us
  • Not An Expert
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2024, 05:33:04 am »
You might also have a defective tip, but the base station is fine.  Do you have another tip?
 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2024, 08:41:33 am »
Yes, I bought the station with multiple new tips from an official distributor and I tried all of them.
 

Offline armandine2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2024, 12:54:47 pm »
I bought from Farnell - I think

.. and in the past, using my MX500 power supply, I've had to send them back their advanced hand-piece, as it failed to recognize some tips (which the regular hand-piece would).

Perhaps their poor QC really is endemic?  :palm:
« Last Edit: May 05, 2024, 01:00:05 pm by armandine2 »
Funny, the things you have the hardest time parting with are the things you need the least - Bob Dylan
 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2024, 08:58:26 am »
This product is not cheap, so having customer do the QC is a bit low.

This upsets me, because I was hoping to speed up my work and what I got is lost few days and frustration. Now I have to deal with the return. I hope they won't be making a fuss.

Then I have to figure out a different station that would have similar specs...
 

Offline armandine2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2024, 10:44:38 am »
my tuppence

In my experience - albeit little - there will be no problem returning your gear.

I, also on my little experience, expect the "fault" will likely be in the hand-piece rather than the power supply.

After my disappointing test with the high thermal demand hand-piece - which I believe can only be run from my MX5200 power supply not the MX500 - I tested the MX-RM3E standard hand-piece with an STTC-117 5mm cartridge on the MX5200 and the solder quickly melted and covered the coin.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2024, 10:48:06 am by armandine2 »
Funny, the things you have the hardest time parting with are the things you need the least - Bob Dylan
 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2024, 09:34:54 pm »
After my disappointing test with the high thermal demand hand-piece - which I believe can only be run from my MX5200 power supply not the MX500 - I tested the MX-RM3E standard hand-piece with an STTC-117 5mm cartridge on the MX5200 and the solder quickly melted and covered the coin.

I have not personally tried the MX-H6-HTD handpiece, its not clear what benefit there is if any other than the red color, but they advertise it as working on the MX500, 5000, and 5200 stations: https://store.metcal.com/en-us/shop/soldering-desoldering/hand-pieces/MX-H6-HTD

Also not had any issue with the advanced hand piece (MX-H1-AV) on a number of older PS2E stations, at least for the tips I used. Its way better than the older all metal handles. You might need a RF pass through adapter if it doesn't plug in properly.

But there are definitely quite a few station revisions and probably some variations in the passive components used inside these handpieces that could cause issues.
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline armandine2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2024, 07:07:34 am »
After my disappointing test with the high thermal demand hand-piece - which I believe can only be run from my MX5200 power supply not the MX500 - I tested the MX-RM3E standard hand-piece with an STTC-117 5mm cartridge on the MX5200 and the solder quickly melted and covered the coin.

I have not personally tried the MX-H6-HTD handpiece, its not clear what benefit there is if any other than the red color, but they advertise it as working on the MX500, 5000, and 5200 stations: https://store.metcal.com/en-us/shop/soldering-desoldering/hand-pieces/MX-H6-HTD


... apparently the benefit is "lower risk of damaging delicate components" - well it definitely wasn't hurting my two pence.

But that said it looks like a better test will be to solder a few electronic components - I'll try it on my next surface mount board and check.

... and try another cartridge -tbc-  :palm:
« Last Edit: May 07, 2024, 08:57:40 am by armandine2 »
Funny, the things you have the hardest time parting with are the things you need the least - Bob Dylan
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2024, 12:47:48 pm »
In my experience - albeit little - there will be no problem returning your gear.

I don't like how this is going. Something I'd describe as making a fuss.

I never expected buying supposedly premium soldering station from, I'd say, reputable distributor would turn to be such a sh*tshow.

 

Offline armandine2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2024, 07:22:30 pm »
I've just re-watched SDG Electronic's review of his high thermal demand Metcal equipment - I'm not getting anything comparable to his performance - a possibly interesting inductance test measurement mentioned in the comments section. 


Funny, the things you have the hardest time parting with are the things you need the least - Bob Dylan
 

Online KE5FX

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1952
  • Country: us
    • KE5FX.COM
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2024, 07:46:04 pm »
Love me some Metcal irons, but I still keep an old-school 80-watt Weller next to my MX-5000.  The latter is just not the the right tool for that kind of work IMHO.

Not only that, but it's surprising how often two soldering irons come in handy.  Saves a lot of tip-swapping for one thing, and pretty much eliminates the need for SMD tweezers.
 

Offline armandine2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2024, 09:08:14 pm »
I mostly use the MX500 with the ultrafine hand-piece and toggle to the other output which has the tweezers.

To fully utilize the MX5200 as well the MX500 I would need another work stand - 4 in total  :palm:.

Another possibly useful video - if you want a factory reset:





Funny, the things you have the hardest time parting with are the things you need the least - Bob Dylan
 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2024, 09:27:39 pm »
I bought it to help me solder boards I have. They are 6 layer with quite large ground planes, so the FX-951 is struggling a bit to solder some pins on IDC connector sockets and through hole capacitors. Given I have a lot of ground pins, even saving a second or two on each would be a nice improvement.

I won't buy a second Metcal from another source, because I cannot have that kind of money tied in another return process in case it goes wrong again.
The distributor is making the return difficult and I am potentially looking at few weeks before I get my money back if not more.

So options I am considering are:
Hakko FX-971
Hakko FX-100
JBC-CD-2BF with T245 hand piece
JBC-DDE-2C with T245 hand piece

Would they give me what I am looking for? That is a bit more power into the 2mm tip so I can solder these pins quickly?

 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2024, 10:20:46 pm »
I bought it to help me solder boards I have. They are 6 layer with quite large ground planes, so the FX-951 is struggling a bit to solder some pins on IDC connector sockets and through hole capacitors. Given I have a lot of ground pins, even saving a second or two on each would be a nice improvement.

I won't buy a second Metcal from another source, because I cannot have that kind of money tied in another return process in case it goes wrong again.
The distributor is making the return difficult and I am potentially looking at few weeks before I get my money back if not more.

Did you try contacting Metcal at any point to see if they would be able to get you a quick replacement? Most likely a dead end, given their inability to respond to customers, but, might have been worth a shot. Or did you ask the distributor for a replacement instead of a refund?

Quote
So options I am considering are:
Hakko FX-971
Hakko FX-100
JBC-CD-2BF with T245 hand piece
JBC-DDE-2C with T245 hand piece

Would they give me what I am looking for? That is a bit more power into the 2mm tip so I can solder these pins quickly?

With a 2mm tip you won't get much power flowing through it due to limited surface area, use as large and short a tip as is convenient. MX5200 will honestly be one of the better options for that. But you've been burned so, go with one of the JBC's, you'll definitely see huge improvement.

FX971 - 100W - I wouldn't consider yet as this is completely unproven design
FX100 - 50W - Basically the same design but less power than the 80W MX5200, handpiece not as good
JBC-CD-2BF - 130W - T245 will max out around 130W - yes
JBC-DDE-2C - 150W - ok if you wanted two handpieces, or tweezers, etc. - yes
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 
The following users thanked this post: palindrome

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #30 on: May 08, 2024, 10:44:46 pm »
Did you try contacting Metcal at any point to see if they would be able to get you a quick replacement? Most likely a dead end, given their inability to respond to customers, but, might have been worth a shot. Or did you ask the distributor for a replacement instead of a refund?

No I didn't try to contact Metcal. I didn't want to add any complexity to it as I have to complete this work soon. I asked distributor for a refund.
The delivery of the station was delayed and they use couriers that have poor performance in my area, so I just don't want to deal with replacements or anything like that, because that will be a huge waste of time. I also don't know which part is a dud, so they would have to resend the entire order and what if there is still a problem. It's a nope area for me.

FX971 - 100W - I wouldn't consider yet as this is completely unproven design
FX100 - 50W - Basically the same design but less power than the 80W MX5200, handpiece not as good
JBC-CD-2BF - 130W - T245 will max out around 130W - yes
JBC-DDE-2C - 150W - ok if you wanted two handpieces, or tweezers, etc. - yes

Thank you! I'll look into JBC then and probably order one tomorrow. With FX-951 I typically switch between two tips, so DDE-2C may be it.
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline shabaz

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 213
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #31 on: May 08, 2024, 11:23:04 pm »

Regarding the two JBC models, I use the all-in-one single handle model, and for sure it can get irritating fast swapping between handles (in my case a T245 and a T210 handle).

I have used a dual JBC unit in the past, so the all-in-one was a bit of a downgrade for me, but I couldn't justify the dual unit to myself since I don't do production work.

Since you are considering them both, if it were me and both were in scope, I think I'd go with the dual modular model just for that major ease of use of having the separate stands and not having to unplug handles. Always a difficult decision when spending this much money of course, but I think if you're considering the two JBC models then that modular dual one could be a good option.
 
The following users thanked this post: palindrome

Offline armandine2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2024, 07:29:14 pm »
... a Metcal loose end - I had forgotten about - it seems my high thermal demand actually worked better on my MX500  :o

Funny, the things you have the hardest time parting with are the things you need the least - Bob Dylan
 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2024, 11:03:05 pm »
... a Metcal loose end - I had forgotten about - it seems my high thermal demand actually worked better on my MX500  :o



Guess they became too smart for their own good.
I know there are a few DIY builds but they are ~40W, and I believe not super robust. Thermaltronics only ever went up to 40W. Hakko ~50W. Would be good if someone else tried to make a bulletproof 80W+ unit.
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline narkeleptk

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 40
  • Country: us
    • Youtube
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2024, 12:08:58 am »
Must be the tips your using.
I have a cv5210 and work on automotive stuff so usually the pcb's still attached to the aluminum case. The standard handpiece with a 8CH0050s tip gets it done everytime for me.
I cant even imagine what it would do with the heavy duty handpiece & tips.

 

Offline narkeleptk

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 40
  • Country: us
    • Youtube
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2024, 12:12:14 am »
Did you try contacting Metcal at any point to see if they would be able to get you a quick replacement? Most likely a dead end, given their inability to respond to customers, but, might have been worth a shot.

I have had great support from Metcal. The cable on my desoldering gun went faulty after very light use. Even though it was older then a year, they still sent me a free replacement for it. Its definently worth reaching out to them.
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2024, 09:25:09 am »
Did you try contacting Metcal at any point to see if they would be able to get you a quick replacement? Most likely a dead end, given their inability to respond to customers, but, might have been worth a shot.

I have had great support from Metcal. The cable on my desoldering gun went faulty after very light use. Even though it was older then a year, they still sent me a free replacement for it. Its definently worth reaching out to them.

So far the distributor only created RMA for one of the tips, rather than the whole thing and they gave me 48hrs window for when the courier comes to collect. Which in my opinion is ridiculous. They seem to refuse to take the whole order back at once and try to hide behind the "process" they have.
They also refused to send me a label so that I could send everything at once (think of environment) through courier's collection point, instead of having to wait for collection, seemingly item at a time.
To be honest, I have never expected for the customer service to be so poor.

I may write to Metcal about my experience with their distributor, as I really wanted to have that station but if support is so bad, that's just a no go for me.






 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2024, 09:21:36 pm »
The distributor appears to have ghosted me, so I started a claim with my payment provider.

 :palm:
 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6590
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2024, 09:31:35 pm »
You are free to mention who it was, if they really are screwing with you, looks like either Mouser, RS, Farnell, Rapid, and a few smaller ones in UK.
They also seem to sell direct but with a long lead time (2 weeks).
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline mtwieg

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Country: us
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #39 on: May 11, 2024, 01:31:33 pm »
palindrome your observations on the power meter sound roughly normal. If I'm using a conical tip like the STTC-145P then I never see the power meter stay above 20%, even if the tip is wetting directly to a ground plane (on initial contact it might spike to 50% but drops off quickly as the work heats up). Regardless of the ratings of the power supply, the tip itself becomes the bottleneck. Only way to get more power through it would be to use a higher temperature tip (STTC-845P?).

Whenever I work on large boards with lots of copper, I default to using a STTC-136P for most tasks. IIRC it is easy to get near full power through that tip. It's certainly not ideal for 0402 components, but if that 0402 is on a 8 layer board with 2oz copper and no thermal relief, then it's still much easier than struggling with a finer tip.

You could have a part defect, of course. In the past I had a PS-200 whose output power seemed to fade over the span of months, turned out there was some damage to the coaxial contacts in the hand piece, and replacing it fixed the issue. Have you tried switching between the two ports of your unit as well?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2024, 01:37:12 pm by mtwieg »
 
The following users thanked this post: palindrome

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #40 on: May 11, 2024, 04:36:06 pm »
palindrome your observations on the power meter sound roughly normal. If I'm using a conical tip like the STTC-145P then I never see the power meter stay above 20%, even if the tip is wetting directly to a ground plane (on initial contact it might spike to 50% but drops off quickly as the work heats up). Regardless of the ratings of the power supply, the tip itself becomes the bottleneck. Only way to get more power through it would be to use a higher temperature tip (STTC-845P?).

Whenever I work on large boards with lots of copper, I default to using a STTC-136P for most tasks. IIRC it is easy to get near full power through that tip. It's certainly not ideal for 0402 components, but if that 0402 is on a 8 layer board with 2oz copper and no thermal relief, then it's still much easier than struggling with a finer tip.

You could have a part defect, of course. In the past I had a PS-200 whose output power seemed to fade over the span of months, turned out there was some damage to the coaxial contacts in the hand piece, and replacing it fixed the issue. Have you tried switching between the two ports of your unit as well?

I was comparing it to T15-BCM2 on Hakko which I tend to use. I don't think it is a heavy duty tip or anything like that. But maybe Metcal cannot transfer heat through comparably sized tip? Maybe indeed my selection of tips was wrong and Metcal would need a larger tip for similar job. Partially this is why I bought a fair selection of tips, but none really was getting the job done.

I just had a look at the datasheet and one of the tips I used was STTC-136, but STTC-136P seems to be shorter for better heat transfer. Maybe I should have tried that one. But Metcal was struggling even with pins that weren't connected to ground plane and on Hakko I was able to whizz through them. Unfortunately I already packed the whole thing and stored away, so that I can send it back.

I received my JBC-DDE-2C and have used it now for some time. I really like it and it does what I was expecting it to do, so I am keeping it.
 

Offline palindromeTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
Re: Metcal MX-5210 underwhelming performance
« Reply #41 on: May 11, 2024, 04:37:36 pm »
You are free to mention who it was, if they really are screwing with you, looks like either Mouser, RS, Farnell, Rapid, and a few smaller ones in UK.
They also seem to sell direct but with a long lead time (2 weeks).

I'll keep it to myself for now if that's okay.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf