Alpha Metals, back when they still had 'Fry' in their name, used to publish
a simple dross inclusion test. The test involved melting solder samples in
clean beakers with a cover layer of water white rosin flux. I have used
this test with valuable results several times. The results of one test
cancelled a potentially long and costly redesign of some wire solder feeders
for the wave machines. The wire feeders would slip or jamb and lead to
maintenance downtime, but the benefit was assumed to be more constant wave
height and better quality. Actually, with proper settings, quality stayed
constant until the pot needed de-drossing. After the cleaning effort it
required little more time for the operator to add solder bar. The solid
core wire, not surprising due to surface area, exasperated dross production,
and greatly increased cleaning frequency. The dross inclusion test gave me
a convincing reason to eliminate solid wire solder from process. On another
occasion I tested three samples; 1. the current solder extruded in
nitrogen?, 2. a competitor with a much cheaper price, 3. a third vendor with
solder processed in air. The analysis is extremely visual; I had the best
results with an intern evaluating the samples. I had an extremely talented
chemist perform the test in my absence, so I could judge the results blindly
without bias. As I turned the beakers to get a better view, Fred shouted
"no" but my objectivity was blown, I read the labels and picked the low cost
supplier as the best (well not exactly, I convinced myself they all looked
the same, and they did, gray with bright spots). Fred said no the one from
the current supplier looked the best (he had dealt with them for years). An
intern looked at the beakers (young, brain still works, 20-20 vision),
design engineering student, no idea what the markings on the beakers meant,
and said 'this one is the cleanest'. Fred and I took another look and
agreed. It was pretty obvious if you do not have a cost savings to gain or
a vendor relationship to maintain. As objective as we think we are, and I
consider myself a trained observer, when the visual gets subtle, the bias
takes over. Send double blind samples to a truly independent lab, not a
vendor.
By the why, we switched from the nitrogen processed solder to the air
processed solder and achieved a dross reduction that won an Honorable
Mention for my wave solder engineer in the corporate Earth Day competition.
Brad Vanderhoof
AITI
----- Original Message -----
From: "joyce" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [TN] Solder analysis for 63/37
> Send both solder samples to independent analytical lab who issue C of C
> (pay $) with reference standards (e.g ICP detection limit for example).
> Settle it once for all. Qualify a new vendor is part of cost you have
> to pay to switch vendor (therefore, unless it got big cost reduction,
> the risk for long term consistancy, shelf life, etc.etc. is out weight
> the use of the "old chap"). Being said that, you always want to have a
> 2nd supply qualified. So go ahead do the job if you have the budget.
> If the "new" company will pay for the analysis, that is really good news
> for you to get independent assessment at no cost of yours. This is the
> 1st time I heard of using competitive vendor as "in-dependent"
> analytical work...Wrong choice of yours at 1st place....
> jk
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Truit
> >Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 11:05 AM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: [TN] Solder analysis for 63/37
> >
> >
> >I have an issue I'd like to hear from this forum. I have
> >recently had a sales call from "solder company B" wanting to
> >sell me solder. When asked which solder company I use "solder
> >company A" I am warned about the possibility of not receiving
> >virgin grade metals. Suggests that I have an analysis
> >performed to verify. I allowed "company B" to perform the
> >analysis but I also sent a sample out to "company A" for the
> >same test. The results came back not agreeing. One said my
> >solder is fine in regard to tin content (62.78%) the other
> >said it was bad (60.8%) The skeptic in me doesn't want to
> >believe either of them right now.
> >
> >Purchasing loves to "shop" for the best price on solder.
> >
> >Can someone tell me about this virgin grade versus reclaimed
> >solder? Is this a marketing idea? What defects would I see
> >from the "inferior" one? How do I know if my solder was from
> >"reclaimed" metal? Isn't tin tin and lead lead? Is there an
> >unbiased source to send a solder sample to so I can really
> >know what is in my solder pot?
> >--
> >Paul Truit, Mfg. Eng.
> >RBB Systems, Inc.
> >4265C E. Lincolnway
> >Wooster, OH 44691
> >Ph. (330) 567-2906 ext 514
> >Fax (330) 263-5324
> >Email: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------
> >Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using
> >LISTSERV 1.8e To unsubscribe, send a message to
> >[log in to unmask] with following text in the BODY (NOT the
> >subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To temporarily halt or
> >(re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
> >[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE
> >mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to
> >[log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest Search the archives of
> >previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
> >visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for
> >additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
> >[log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> >-----------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
> To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
> To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
> Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
ext.5315
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
-----------------------------------------------------
|
