TECHNET Archives

March 2013

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:
"David D. Hillman" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Date:
Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:24:13 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (64 lines)
Hi Kevin - I disagree with that statement in the IPC-7095C and didn't 
realize it was there (otherwise I would have turned in a comment during 
the draft efforts). I'll make sure to bring the topic back up in the 7095 
committee as we start our next set of  standards revision activities. 
Rockwell Collins has successfully used ENEPIG surface finishes in tin/lead 
and lead-free soldering applications for several years.  We are in the 
process of running another test sequence with one of the DOE legs using 
ENEPIG surface finish so I should have an additional data set I can 
present to the 7095 committee for review in regards to the wording you 
detailed. Pd has very slow diffusion/dissolution characteristics in a 
soldering process so you need to make sure you accommodate those 
metallurgical reactions. 

But - overall- the IPC-7095C represents a huge amount of work by the 
committee with tons of new information that should be very useful to the 
industry. 

Dave Hillman
Rockwell Collins
[log in to unmask]



From:   "Glidden, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]>
To:     <[log in to unmask]>
Date:   03/12/2013 04:35 PM
Subject:        [TN] IPC-7095C vs IPC-4556 ENEPIG for SnPb
Sent by:        TechNet <[log in to unmask]>



Finally taking a few minutes to glance through some of the new IPC 
releases...

I see a statement within IPC-7095C, specifically section 5.3.3.3, that 
states ENEPIG is best suited for Pb-Free soldering, and that studies have 
shown ENEPIG does not produce very reliable tin/lead solder joints, due to 
the inability of Pd to alloy with lead.

I don't see any such warnings or statements in IPC -4556.  Or am I missing 
them?  If this is true, it seems like it would be a major consideration 
and would/should be included or mentioned in IPC-4556 Section 1.4.7 
"Limitations of ENEPIG".

But, I could have it all wrong.  So far all I have done is glance through 
these new specs....


Kevin Glidden


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________




______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2