Hi Dewey! Thanks for the encouraging words! The solderability committees
are working very hard to balance both the component fabricator's and the
manufacturing user's perspectives - everyone has the same goal - good
finish solderability and predictive soldering-ability. The Pbfree is a new
wrinkle but we will hopefully weather it too. Keep an eye on the
specification activities - lots of ongoing work which everyone can use to
improve their processes.
Dave
"Whittaker, Dewey
(AZ75)" To: "'TechNet E-Mail Forum.'" <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
<Dewey.Whittaker@hon <[log in to unmask]>
eywell.com> cc:
Subject: RE: [TN] solderability testing of SMT components
08/25/2003 10:46 AM
Dave,
You are so right in this area.IPC and yourself should be applauded and
supported in this effort.All of us who are losing our ability to control
all aspects of production and their processes,should get involved in this
activity.The Lead-Free initiatives,the "finish de jour" plating
alternatives
and parts allocation from third party distributors are a few of the reasons
for needing a common accepted test methodology.
Dewey
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Hillman [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 7:36 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] solderability testing of SMT components
>
> Hi Larry! MIL-STD-202, method 208 actually points you to using JSTD-002B
> (note the newly released revision status) so if your customers are
> requesting you use MIL-STD-202 then you are using 002B! It is an urban
> myth that the MIL STD solderability test is tougher than the IPC
> solderability test - especially since they are the same test! The
> solderability committee (made up of the IPC, EIA, and JEDEC groups) is
> also
> working on revision of the MIL-STD-750 and MIL-STD-883 specifications to
> point to 002B in a similar manner as MIL-STD-202. The committee is also
> working with the IEC solderability specification group and we may
> eventually have a global solderability specification before we all retire
> (now don't hold your breath but the groups are working very hard with
that
> purpose in mind)! Also keep in mind that the purpose of any solderability
> test is to measure the robustness of the solderable finish -not to be a
> one-to-one predictor of how that finish will work in your manufacturing
> process. I know that sounds hypocritical but no solderability
> specification
> can replicate the multitude of times/temperatures/flux compositions that
> we
> use in the industry soldering processes and therefore having a
> methodology/testing procedure that demonstrates the robustness of a
> solderable finish is more useful to the industry. You, the user, can
> decide
> how that given solderability measure fits your manufacturing process.
Have
> the solderability committees attempted to make the solderability test
> representative/predictive of real life manufacturing? - absolutely, but
> it
> is more important that a solderability test be consistent and repeatable
> so
> that the test results can be applied in useful, universal manner.
>
> Dave Hillman
> JSTD-002 Chairman
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> Technetters,
> How does your Quality department test components for solderability? Do
> they
> still test to the MIL-STD-202, MIL-STD-750D which is a soldering iron or
> solder pot test? I'm looking to have my company test to IPC/EIA
J-STD-002A
> 4.2.5 "test S- surface mount process simulation test." This test
basically
> is placing solderpaste on ceramic and running it through the reflow oven.
> My thought is that this is how these components are going to be used, so
> this test better reproduces the actual world.
>
> But, many component manufactures still use one of the MIL standards. As
> you
> all know, components will solder much better using the MIL test then the
> IPC test.I can see there is gonna be difficulty in getting them to accept
> them back as defective. How do you handle this? Do you test to the MIL
> test
> because thats what the manufacture does? How would you handle the issue
of
> the component passing the MIL test but failing the IPC test Knowing that
> the IPC test reflects your manufacturing process?
>
> Larry
>
---------------------------------------------------
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/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
-----------------------------------------------------
|
