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:
"Gumpert, Ben" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Gumpert, Ben
Date:
Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:32:54 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Pete,

Do the solder joints violate any of the J-STD-001 criteria (assuming that's a requirement)?
That's an easier argument than something abstract like the level of risk.

Ben

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EXTERNAL: [TN] Explaining why pretty solder joints arn't good solder joints

We have a product on which the assembly vendor decided to change the power inductor we specified.  The part they used is close to the same size, but even at nominal, the leads overhand the pads on 3 sides under the body.  I raised a concern that these stress points create a risky solder joint.  The engineering group running this project keeps sending me pictures:  "look - it fits on the board and they got solder on the outside of the leads!"  I pointed out that the 3 sides of the joint they can't see are stress points.  Any tips on explaining the risk here?

Pete

______________________________________________________________________
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