George,
The response happened to be an email with your address and was addressed to
the net in general as I did not use a name as I normally do.

John Maxwell

At 05:48 PM 10/11/2005, you wrote:
>John,
>
>As you know from our past interactions I'm in your camp especially when
>it comes to 100%Sn.  My response to Phil wasn't a suggestion that Sn100C
>was better than SAC 305.  I was only questioning his suggestion that SAC
>305 was IPC's alloy of choice for wave soldering.
>
>Regards,
>George
>George M. Wenger, Andrew Corporation
>Reliability / FMA Engineer
>Base Station & Subsystems Group
>40 Technology Drive, Warren, NJ 07059
>(908) 546-4531 [log in to unmask]
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Maxwell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:03 PM
>To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Wenger, George M.
>Subject: Re: [TN] SAC 305 versus Sn100C
>
>Alas, I wish I was consulting again as this would be money in the bank
>for those using 100% Sn. Brittle brittle brittle, my old Chemical Rubber
>
>handbook describes tin as the crying metal due to crystal cracking. Rel
>testing that I ran on both reflow and thru hole assemblies lead me to
>abandon Sn100 and Sn99C due to solder joint cracking so lots of luck.
>
>John maxwell
>
>Wenger, George M. wrote:
>
> >Phil,
> >
> >Did I miss something on TN?  You made the comment that "Sn100C is less
> >expensive than SAC 305(the IPC alloy of choice)."  Has the IPC come out
> >and indorsed SAC 305 for Pb-Free wave soldering?  I know the IPC Solder
> >Products Value Council has indicated that "the  96.5/3.0/0.5 SAC alloy
> >be the lead free alloy of choice for the electronics industry" but that
> >was based on their surface mount assembly and reliability evaluation
>not
> >on a wave soldering evaluation.
> >
> >Regards,
> >George
> >George M. Wenger, Andrew Corporation
> >Reliability / FMA Engineer
> >Base Station & Subsystems Group
> >40 Technology Drive, Warren, NJ 07059
> >(908) 546-4531 [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This message is for the designated recipient only and may
>contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
>If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
>this email is prohibited.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[mf2]
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>Technet Mail List provided as a 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
>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>-----------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a 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 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------