 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vPXjR-0000UOC; Mon, 18 Nov 96 11:43 CST |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:52:28 -0500 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"2pagW.0.K8O.51Aao"@ipc> |
| From [log in to unmask] Tue Nov 19 09: |
11:06 1996 |
| From: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Your problem cannot be handled with a 'fatigue resistant' solder; you must
essentially reduce the thermal expansion mismatch to near zero, because in
the 175 to 200oC range no solder is 'fatigue-resistant' which would imply
resisting creep. However, I am puzzled by to -55oC; I cannot imagine an
actual application down to -55oC--even the USAF no longer talks about -55oC
since no electronics actually experiences this temperature.
Werner Engelmaier
Engelmaier Associates, Inc.
Electronic Packaging, Interconnection and Reliability Consulting
23 Gunther Street
Mendham, NJ 07945 USA
Phone & Fax: 201-543-2747
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
