"I can get
My comments are DITTO to those of Richard & Vladimir,
"I can get good solder coverage on a toothpick"
"Nothing tests soldering better than soldering"
There is nothing basically wrong with IPC-JTD-002 and 003. They are good solderability tests but one needs to understand that they don't tell you everything you need to know about solderability. If you run 002 or 003 and the parts fail the established criteria you can best believe you have a severe solderability issue. If you pass 002 and 003 that does not guarantee that those parts won't have a solderability issue when soldered using your actual soldering process. What I really like about 002 and 003 is that they are established industrial tests with defined conditions so they are great when used to do "A" to "B" comparisons. I like Greg Munie am a person who liked the older versions where non-activated water white rosin flux was used to do solderability testing. If you pass solderability testing with a non-activated flux you have a much better assurance that you probably will have good solderability when used in the actual assembly process than if you had tested with an activated flux. It is my (maybe not everyone's) understanding that the switch was made from a non-activated water white rosin flux to a flux with a known activation for two reasons; one being you get better gage R&R results with activated flux and the other being less components will fail a solderability test and that makes component vendors happy.
Regards,
George
George M. Wenger
Andrew Solutions
Senior Principal FMA/Reliability Engineer
40 Technology Drive, Warren, NJ 07059
(908) 546-4531 (Office) (732) 309-8964 (cell)
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 9:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] PCB wetting issue saga, final question
I could not agree more with what Vladimir stated. Wetting balance tests and even dip-and-look solderability tests do not compare with the actual "test" of assembly and soldering of the board and components. If there are issues, one needs to put a TC on the PWB and find out exactly what the profile is, and if it appears to be adequate but there are still issues with wetting then those need to be determined using other means such as micro-sectioning, etc. Just because component leads and/or board pads solder up by themselves does not mean they can be eliminated. As a well-known reliability expert who occasionally contributes to this forum once said, "I can get good solder coverage on a toothpick."
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Igoshev
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] PCB wetting issue saga, final question
Hi Ioan,
Unfortunately, any of the solderabilty tests (even the wetting balance one) very often are far away from the real life (real re-flow profiles) and the level of "comfort" they can give one can be very deceptive.
I always say that in order to solve a problem, one would have to get down to its root cause.
It case of "solderabilty issues" the real root cause may have absolutely nothing to do with solderabilty of either component or the board. You can take a look at the case history on our website.
Regards,
Vladimir
SENTEC
------Original Message------
From: Ioan Tempea
Sender: TechNet
To: [log in to unmask]
ReplyTo: TechNet E-Mail Forum
ReplyTo: Ioan Tempea
Sent: Aug 11, 2009 08:51
Subject: [TN] PCB wetting issue saga, final question
Hello Technos,
I have been asking questions on Technet about some wetting issues we see on a particular board and got many useful answers. In the end we've had the boards tested for solderability by respectable labs and the bare boards passed J-STD-003 testing with flying colors.
To back track a little bit, the original doubt came from the fact that in reflow, the solder does wet very well on both the board and the component in the component pin area, but would stop spreading pretty far from the land's end. It just stops spreading, even though the wetting angles at the stop points are very low, so denoting excellent wetting.
And here comes the question: why is testing per J-STD-003 done at 235 C and with a rather aggressive flux, when the reflow soldering takes place at 205 C (HASL finish) using a milder flux (I am using WS, but it could very well be no-clean...)?
Thanks,
Ioan Tempea, ing.
Ingénieur Principal Fabrication / Sr. Manufacturing Engineer
30 ans déjà! - Already 30 years!
950 rue Bergar, Laval, Québec, H7L 5A1
t : 450-967-7100 ext : 244
Mtl : 514-990-5762
f : 450-967-7444
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.digico.cc <http://www.digico.cc/>
P N'imprimer que si nécessaire - Print only if you must
---------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------
SENTEC
11 Canadian Road, Unit 7.
Scarborough, ON M1R 5G1
Tel: (416) 899-1882
Fax: (905) 882-8812
www.sentec.ca
---------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
-----------------------------------------------------
|
