Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:14:33 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 05/04/99 06:46:26PM, [log in to unmask]
writes:
SNIP
> Are you sure gold embrittlement is really a problem? I don't recall having
> ever seen any metallurgical reports that say what Au does in Sn96/Ag3.5, so
> I'm not sure that its limitations are the same as those of Sn63 and
similar.
> I do recall having worked with the Sn96/Ag3.5 and similar solders years ago
> and producing some of the ugliest solder joints ever conceived, in a
> cosmetic
> sense. The solder joints were quite strong and did the job intended.
Sn96 is more tolerant of Au than Sn63 under the same conditions.
Approximately:
The problem of gold embrittlement is the ratio of Au to Sn, as there is 50%
more Sn in the SN96, the gold leached into the joint will be 2/3 the level
(with respect to the tin) compared to the same amount (of Au) in a Sn63 joint.
Mike Fenner
################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF TechNet
################################################################
Please visit IPC's web site (http://www.ipc.org) "On-Line Services" section for additional information.
For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.312
################################################################
|
|
|