DIYbanter - View Single Post

N_Cook

On 01/12/2015 15:22, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:23:11 AM UTC-5, N_Cook wrote:
On 01/12/2015 14:00, N_Cook wrote:
Pure tin tinning on a component which should have had derogated Pb/Sn

If I were to render an opinion, pure tin as a mechanical joint is a very bad idea, nor would I think that a sophisticated manufacturer would do that as a matter of intent. Pure tin is extremely brittle, and should NEVER be depended upon in any sort of situation where mechanical stresses (expansion/contraction/flexing) will take place. Add to this the whole issue of tin whiskers (which NASA, at least now understands all too painfully). If what you suggest is accurate, this is a design flaw of significant magnitude. If it is present fleet-wide, it is time to ground these beasts until the problem is addressed specifically.

I would hope that aircraft manufacturers by now would have learned that some admixture to their solders is a necessary step to reliability. And would have learned by now from the Nuclear industry if not NASA that relying on pure tin is a dangerous practice.

All-and-at-the-same-time, counterfeit parts are getting into the OEM repair stream at every level. It would not be difficult to believe where such parts may get into the OEM first-install stream as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

I know from someone in the medical electronics field, that is extremely
difficult , if not impossible, to guarantee that PbF components do not
get into the derogated product stream, without sample chemical testing
of each batch of componnts, done themselves. The supposed accredited
documentation is easily compromised and cannot be relied on. With all
the extra markup on derogated components, plenty of motive.