From: Jim Yanik on
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer(a)comcast.net> wrote in
news:i1nqh7$7qt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:

>> Because it is a eutectic mixture, 63/37 does not have "much
>> of a plastic state". This means it is more [sic] sensitive to
>> movement in the joint while the solder is cooling -- if the
>> connections are unstable it forms more [sic] dry joints.
>
> I don't what you meant to say, but what you did say is backwards.
> Eutectic solder is less likely to produce a dry or crystallized joint.
>
>
>

I agree;
the eutectic joint solidifies faster and thus less likely to move while the
solder is still "plastic".


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
From: Smitty Two on
In article <i1nhau$vj6$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)
>
> I can only cite "common sense". 63/37 has always been more-expensive than
> 60/40.

Then you can't substantiate your contention that 60/40 was THE worldwide
standard for tens of years just because it was a few pennies cheaper per
pound? That is the statement of yours with which I take issue.
From: William Sommerwerck on
>>>> 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.

> Then you can't substantiate your contention that 60/40 was THE
> worldwide standard for tens of years just because it was a few pennies
> cheaper per pound? That is the statement of yours with which I take issue.

I have no objection to your objection.

However, 60/40 was never, ever, "a few pennies per pound" cheaper than
63/37. For the last 30 years, the price of eutectic solder has been
sufficiently higher to make one think twice before buying it. The last time
I purchased solder, I decided that a one-pound roll of Kester 44 would last
the rest of my life, and I splurged. (At this point in my life, my
prediction is coming true. I rarely solder any more. If I drop dead, someone
digging through the junk will find a pleasant surprise. Assuming they know
what 63/37 is.)

I just checked Parts Express, and a 1# roll of Kester 44 60/40 is $22.23.
63/37 is $26.85. That's a $4.62 difference, almost 21% more -- hardly
"pennies per pound". When I bought the same product some years back, my
memory is that the price was around $7.50 for the 60/40, $9 for the 63/37.
Even that wasn't "pennies per pound".

I looked at the MCM site for Ersin products. Get this... MCM describes its
house brand of 60/40 solder as "provid[ing] the lowest possible melting
point".

Businesses almost always try to cut every corner they can. If you think your
solderers -- or soldering machines -- are doing a good job, you might prefer
to buy the less-expensive 60/40.

When I worked at Bendix Field Engineering, I often walked through the
section where a bunch of women (never men) soldered assemblies, following
NASA standards. I never thought to ask whether they used 60/40 or 63/37.


From: William Sommerwerck on
> Rosin flux can be removed with 99% isopropyl alcohol
> ($1 a bottle at your corner drug store).

You won't find 99% for $1. (91%, maybe.)


From: GregS on
In article <i1p4j1$t6b$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> Rosin flux can be removed with 99% isopropyl alcohol
>> ($1 a bottle at your corner drug store).
>
>You won't find 99% for $1. (91%, maybe.)


If you can get 95% ethanol, I thinks its best. By the time
you use 98 or 99% it absorbs water anyway on the board,
and you still have a water residue. You can also drink it.

greg
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: Telephone wiring 101.
Next: Valve/tube, A/R fault