60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
in [Repair]
|
Prev: Telephone wiring 101.
Next: Valve/tube, A/R fault
From: Smitty Two on 18 Jul 2010 14:37 In article <i1vfd1$o0l$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > As a side note, the wholesale pricing of solder also seems to be > > heavily volume-driven. A small distributor to hobbyists might buy > > a couple of hundred pounds at a time, while a large industrial > > distributor buys tens of thousands. They get a huge discount for > > that, and can easily pass that savings on to their customers. > > But we still don't have an answer to the question of why there is such a > wide disparity in the /relative/ pricing of 60/40 and eutectic solders. At the risk of misunderstanding you yet again, and mis-responding, here's my shot at that: Smaller distributors play on the "new and improved" perception that someone up-thread mentioned, so they mark up the 63/37 more. Larger industrial distributors play it a little straighter, with more equal markups. But my side note could actually play into this, too: If my supplier sells 10 times as much 63/37 as he does 60/40, then he obviously buys 10 times as much, so Kester gives him a better price break.
From: Smitty Two on 18 Jul 2010 14:39 In article <slrni46gn9.irp.gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com>, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm(a)mendelson.com> wrote: > William Sommerwerck wrote: > > > But we still don't have an answer to the question of why there is such a > > wide disparity in the /relative/ pricing of 60/40 and eutectic solders. > > Because 60/40 is just solder, while 63/37 solder is an allowed under special > circumstances lead-free replacement and needs certification? > > I know it's not lead free, but it's the solder you use when you have to > use leaded solder under lead free regulations. > > Geoff. Must be cocktail hour where you are, Geoff. Either that or I'm still hungover and don't know it.
From: William Sommerwerck on 18 Jul 2010 14:43 >> But we still don't have an answer to the question of why there is such >> a wide disparity in the /relative/ pricing of 60/40 and eutectic solders. > Because 60/40 is just solder, while 63/37 solder is an allowed under > special circumstances lead-free replacement and needs certification? > I know it's not lead free, but it's the solder you use when you have to > use leaded solder under lead free regulations. The difference existed at least 30 years ago, when I bought my first roll of eutectic.
From: William Sommerwerck on 18 Jul 2010 14:44 >> Correct. The original writer was probably confused by the >> fact that the materials ceramic ICs are made of can contain >> radioactive materials that can cause errors. > No, the alphas from lead are a real problem. Ten years ago, there were > folks going round to churches with lead roofs, offering them a new lead > roof in exchange for their old--and now low-alpha--lead ones. But where is the lead /within/ ICs? (The wires are bonded, not soldered.) Alpha particles have poor penetrating power.
From: William Sommerwerck on 18 Jul 2010 14:48
>> But we still don't have an answer to the question of why there is such >> a wide disparity in the /relative/ pricing of 60/40 and eutectic solders. > At the risk of misunderstanding you yet again, and mis-responding, > here's my shot at that: > Smaller distributors play on the "new and improved" perception that > someone up-thread mentioned, so they mark up the 63/37 more. No, you're not misunderstanding, and what you say is logical. But... This disparity existed 30 years ago, when I first bought a roll of eutectic solder. At that time, eutectic was less-common and less asked-for. That /might/ explain the difference. |