60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
in [Basics]
|
From: John Larkin on 15 Jul 2010 11:42 On 15 Jul 2010 08:04:55 GMT, John Doe <jdoe(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote: >none given.now (Joe) wrote: > >> Why are there these two very similar solders? Is there any >> situation where one is better than the other? > >Dunno, but... If you do detail work, try water-soluble flux >solder. You just wipe off the residue for a sparkling clean >circuit. And one that makes a great humidity sensor. John
From: Smitty Two on 15 Jul 2010 12:29 In article <i1mtb8$8u4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer(a)comcast.net> wrote: > The only reason 60/40 was ever manufactured in the first place is that tin > is more expensive than lead, so 63/37 solder costs more. Cite, please? (and I don't mean a link to commodity prices)
From: Robbie Hatley on 15 Jul 2010 13:31 "Joe" wrote: > I wonder if ... 60/40 might ever be better to use. No. For hand soldering, I recommend Sn63Pb37 wire solder with an activated rosin flux core. Use thin solder, about 23AWG; it melts the faster, for less chance of cold joints. For surface mount, use even thinner, about 28AWG. Avoid organic or water-soluable flux unless you're going to wash the board thoroughly after soldering. Rosin flux can be removed with 99pct isopropyl alcohol ($1 a bottle at your corner drug store). But frankly, I recommend NOT removing the rosin flux scum. Leave it on; it's inert, airproof, waterproof, sweatproof, so it protects the joint. -- Been soldering stuff since 1973, Robbie Hatley lonewolf [[at]] well [[dot]] com
From: William Sommerwerck on 15 Jul 2010 13:42 >> The only reason 60/40 was ever manufactured in the first place is >> that tin is more expensive than lead, so 63/37 solder costs more. > Cite, please? (and I don't mean a link to commodity prices) I can only cite "common sense". 63/37 has always been more-expensive than 60/40.
From: George Herold on 15 Jul 2010 15:20
On Jul 15, 11:42 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On 15 Jul 2010 08:04:55 GMT, John Doe <j...(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote: > > >none given.now (Joe) wrote: > > >> Why are there these two very similar solders? Is there any > >> situation where one is better than the other? > > >Dunno, but... If you do detail work, try water-soluble flux > >solder. You just wipe off the residue for a sparkling clean > >circuit. > > And one that makes a great humidity sensor. > > John Yeah, My prototype of a board with several high meg resistors (up to 1 gig.) was put together by myself with old Kester "44" (rosin flux.) Worked great. Production did a few with their favorite water based flux... No good! Now I have to convince them to go back to the old standard. The new ROHS fluxes seem to be even worse. I measured a few meg ohms between pads that had been 'cleaned'.... NOT. George H. |