Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vS6Rp-0000UHC; Mon, 25 Nov 96 13:12 CST |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 25 NOV 96 12:20:27 MST |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Cc: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Tue Dec 3 10: |
17:37 1996 |
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
X-Status: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"8NBvG.0.P_F.4-Uco"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
X-Loop: |
|
Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Resent-Sender: |
|
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I have a few questions about an issue that started this whole eutectic
conversation. What are the advantages of moving to a 62Sn/36Pb/2Ag solder
paste. From the information that I have received from some solder paste
reps is that the popularity of the silver alloy paste has dwindled from about
50% of the volume to about 35%(according to Alpha, Kester, Indiun and Heraeus
reps). Our supplier demands an extra half a cent a gram for a 2% silver
formula.
Our 63/37 solder joints are 3-4 times the strength requirements set by IPC,
thus an increase in strength is not cost effective with the high volumes of
paste we use. And even though we have seen a very low number of palladium
silver components, I am not convinced that a 2% silver is going to buy us
much since palladium is supposed have a 100% dissolution rate with tin provided
your reflow profiles are set up correctly(with sufficient time over reflow).
Has anyone out there recently moved from a 63/37 to a 62/36/2 or visa versa,
and why.
Steve A
***************************************************************************
* 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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|