TECHNET Archives

February 2009

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"P. Langeveld" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, P. Langeveld
Date:
Sat, 7 Feb 2009 11:03:06 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (130 lines)
Incident:

A supplier of tinned wire delivered after years of good quality,
series of wire that could not be soldered well. They claimed that they
still tested the solderability according IEC-standards and sent their
meniscograms. They were correct.
The test on the customer site was repeated with the used flux provided
by the wire deliverer, with bad wetting results.
A visit to the wire supplier sorted out that the analist, who made the
meniscogram, poured an amount of flux in an open dish and used it all
day without refreshing. So the solid content of the flux in the dish
increased significantly and the activity af the flux was increased
too.

Moreover it appeared that the temperature of the solder bath, that was
controlled by a temperature controller, was 27dC too high. They had
made an offset of the controller with reference to a glass/mercury
(!!!!!!!) thermometer measurement that was dipped in the solder.
However they did not correct for the length of mercury column outside
the solder.

Lesson: Has been checked that the test parameters were OK conform the Standards.

Peer Langeveld
Consultant Soft Soldering Processes
5502 VH 8
The Netherlands

2009/2/7 David D. Hillman <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Graham - Please find out what flux (i.e. product name: Kester XXX or
> Alpha YYY or Indium ZZZ, etc.)  the component fabricator used in his test.
> Also find out which solderability specification did they use
> (IPC-JSTD-002C or MIL-STD-XXX) and which solderability test method did
> they use (Method A or B or...). If you can get those facts, I can tell you
> if they followed the specification requirements. My guess is that they
> used an incorrect flux.
>
> Dave Hillman
> JSTD-002 specification Chairman
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> Graham Collins <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
> 02/06/2009 08:12 AM
> Please respond to
> TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>; Please respond to
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> To
> [log in to unmask]
> cc
>
> Subject
> [TN] Part solderability
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi guys.
> A while back I rejected a bunch of parts due to non wetting when we went
> to solder them.
>
> The manufacturer has come back with a response to our guys, saying that
> they did a steam aging test on them and they passed fine.  He wants to
> discuss it with us.
>
> Obviously this is not good - they pass his test but I can't solder the
> things.  Which makes me suspect his test... but makes him suspect my
> process.  I don't know enough about steam aging tests to discuss this
> well.  Obviously I need to ask what kind of flux he is using, but anything
> else?
>
> Our process is SnPb, we use RMA flux, and the wave soldering machine runs
> at 500F for the pot.  This is on an assembly that we have happily built
> for about 7 years, with the same manufacturer of part, and no process
> changes that I can identify as significant.  The part is what I would call
> marginally solderable, if we hand solder it and put a fair bit of heat to
> the lead we can get it to solder, but not well or easily.  No previous
> soldering issues with the part.
>
> regards,
>
> Graham Collins
> Halifax Production Engineering
> L-3 communications Electronic Systems
> (902) 873-2000 ext. 6215
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
> 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 15.0
> 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 15.0
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
-----------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2