Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
When the joint moves while in the plastic stage it is still electrically
connected -- when the joint moves with a eutectic mixture it cracks -- the joint is very weak when still close to the liquid stage. With the non-eutectic mixture the crystals of tin provide strength while the solid is cooling. I'm not an expert on the physics of materials, but this flies in the face of what I think I understand. How can a eutectic mixture ever be "close to" the liquid stage? To paraphrase Yoda -- "It either is, or is not." I might not have explained it very well, but I assure you, with total honesty, that the reason 60/40 was popular was the better reliability for point to point soldering and the reason 63/37 is now taking its place is that point to point has all but disappeared and the eutectic mixture gives slightly lower thermal stress. You might not consciously not be telling the truth, but that doesn't mean what you say is correct. Either that, or you believe our antecedents were morons, who while they knew about the eutectic mixture, were too stupid to use it, or too clumsy to mix it, or they thought a few dollars extra per ton of solder was too much to pay for the good stuff. The difference in price is not just "a few dollars extra per ton". A significantly higher price is almost certainly the explanation. When I was a kid and assembled kits, the instructions always warned that the connection /had/ to be mechanically strong before it was soldered. (I remember the Knight-Kit photographs very well.) This isn't true in practice -- as I commented in a recent posting, J Gordon Holt fought against it -- but it virtually guaranteed that the wires wouldn't move during the soldering process. If the solderer heated the joint sufficiently, a cold joint was essentially impossible, eutectic solder or not. This didn't keep customers from making bad joints, or altogether missing joints to be soldered. These, I believe, were the principal causes of non-working kits. Eutectic solder would have helped only a little (ie, there's a limit to how much you can prevent human error). About a year ago I had to replace a high-current driver in an electronic crossover. The device was a five-pin TO-style product. Removing the PC board to unsolder it would have required removing all the input and output jacks. (Yes!) So I had to clip the device's pins near the body, unsolder and pull out the pin stubs, then suck out any remaining solder. I was grateful I had eutectic solder, because it made it easy to re-fill the holes and suck them clean, then solder in the new chip with virtual certainty the connection would be good. (It was.) Confession time... One basic rule of soldering is "Get the joint hot enough to melt the solder. Do not melt the solder directly with the iron." I've been ignoring that for nearly half a century, and have never had a bad joint. According to the Kester Website... "Sn60 has a plastic range and puts down a slightly thicker coating of solder. Sn60 is often preferred for lead tinning and other solder coating applications. Sn63 is eutectic and as such has no plastic range. Generally it flows better than Sn60 and is the preferred alloy for wave soldering and surface mount applications." This isn't a complete answer -- I assume the cheaper 60/40 makes sense when coating, because no joint is involved. However, "flows better" seems to be a desirable characteristic when soldering joints. I'm willing to be proved wrong about anything. I'd like to see a document -- preferably from a solder manufacturer -- that explains why 60/40 is less likely to produce a cracked joint than 63/37. |
#42
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On 2010-07-16, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:06:03 -0700, (Dave Platt) wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solder This got my attention: Some alloys, namely of lead and to some degree tin, contain small but significant amounts of radioisotope impurities. The radioisotopes undergoing alpha decay are a concern due to their tendency to cause soft errors. Polonium-210 is especially problematic; lead-210 beta decays to bismuth-210 which then beta decays to polonium-210, an intense emitter of alpha particles. Uranium-238 and thorium-232 are other significant contaminants of lead containing alloys. Oh swell.... something else to worry about. sounds like bull****, alpha particles aren't energetic enough to get even 1/10 of the way through the encapsulation on a RAM chip. fraction of the --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#43
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solder
This got my attention: Some alloys, namely of lead and to some degree tin, contain small but significant amounts of radioisotope impurities. The radioisotopes undergoing alpha decay are a concern due to their tendency to cause soft errors. Polonium-210 is especially problematic; lead-210 beta decays to bismuth-210 which then beta decays to polonium-210, an intense emitter of alpha particles. Uranium-238 and thorium-232 are other significant contaminants of lead containing alloys. Oh swell.... something else to worry about. sounds like bull****, alpha particles aren't energetic enough to get even 1/10 of the way through the encapsulation on a RAM chip. 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. |
#44
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:28:08 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solder This got my attention: Some alloys, namely of lead and to some degree tin, contain small but significant amounts of radioisotope impurities. The radioisotopes undergoing alpha decay are a concern due to their tendency to cause soft errors. Polonium-210 is especially problematic; lead-210 beta decays to bismuth-210 which then beta decays to polonium-210, an intense emitter of alpha particles. Uranium-238 and thorium-232 are other significant contaminants of lead containing alloys. Oh swell.... something else to worry about. sounds like bull****, alpha particles aren't energetic enough to get even 1/10 of the way through the encapsulation on a RAM chip. 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. Happened in plastic too. Intel once helped the problem along by using Kr instead of Ar, IIRC, in a hermaticity test. Battleship steel has a lot of uses, too, since it was forged before the first atmospheric tests. |
#45
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" 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. 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". 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. William, Parts Express sells to hobbyists. Their prices are meaningless as a reference. I buy solder, as I have for 25 years, from industrial suppliers. Since you didn't state either the diameter or the core, (and diameter can make a huge difference in price) I looked up your comparison rolls on Parts Express. I see you referred to Kester 44 with a 66 core and at .031 diameter. To compare apples to apples, I called my supplier yesterday for current pricing: 63/37, $13.80/lb. 60/40, $13.30/lb. I also asked how many people were buying 60/40, and she confirmed that well over 90% of customers use 63/37. 1. You're paying nosebleed prices whichever formula you buy. 2. The cost difference is indeed pennies when purchased from real supply houses 3. Regardless of the cost difference, 63/37 *is* the standard now, as it has been for 20 years. 4. Based on #3 above, your assertion that companies will cut corners anyway they can is false. 5. Therefore, my contention that the widespread switch was made due to improved performance of 63/37 seems to be the only logical conclusion. Now, you said that 63/37 eutectic nature was known 50 years ago. That may or may not be true, but what is true is that the widespread industrial changeover happened much more recently, about 20 years ago. |
#46
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
David Eather wrote: When the joint moves while in the plastic stage it is still electrically connected - when the joint moves with a eutectic mixture it cracks - the joint is very weak when still close to the liquid stage. Here I'm going to agree with William and others that you're mistaken. Eutectic means that the transition from liquid to solid occurs at the same temperature as the transition from solid to liquid. By definition, the joint *cannot* move with a eutectic mixture, except when the solder is liquid. It's the plastic state of non-eutectic stuff that has the potential to cause problems. |
#47
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
To compare apples to apples, I called my supplier yesterday for
current pricing: 63/37, $13.80/lb. 60/40, $13.30/lb. I also asked how many people were buying 60/40, and she confirmed that well over 90% of customers use 63/37. Fascinating. It raises the question of why there is such a huge difference in the pricing of Kester's solders. Now, you said that 63/37 eutectic nature was known 50 years ago. That may or may not be true, but what is true is that the widespread industrial changeover happened much more recently, about 20 years ago. Hey, I read it in Popular Electronics in the '60s. It was probably known back in the '30s. |
#48
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: To compare apples to apples, I called my supplier yesterday for current pricing: 63/37, $13.80/lb. 60/40, $13.30/lb. I also asked how many people were buying 60/40, and she confirmed that well over 90% of customers use 63/37. Fascinating. It raises the question of why there is such a huge difference in the pricing of Kester's solders. If you're referring to widely different prices from different suppliers, it's the same with any product or service, of course. When the 99% isopropyl topic come up, I plugged it into google's "shopping" tab. Prices ranged from 2.79 to 14.50 for a pint of the stuff. |
#49
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
To compare apples to apples, I called my supplier yesterday for
current pricing: 63/37, $13.80/lb. 60/40, $13.30/lb. I also asked how many people were buying 60/40, and she confirmed that well over 90% of customers use 63/37. Fascinating. It raises the question of why there is such a huge difference in the pricing of Kester's solders. If you're referring to widely different prices from different suppliers, it's the same with any product or service, of course. When the 99% isopropyl topic come up, I plugged it into google's "shopping" tab. Prices ranged from 2.79 to 14.50 for a pint of the stuff. That isn't what I meant. There's a 20% difference in the price between Kester's 60/40 and 63/37 solders. |
#50
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: To compare apples to apples, I called my supplier yesterday for current pricing: 63/37, $13.80/lb. 60/40, $13.30/lb. I also asked how many people were buying 60/40, and she confirmed that well over 90% of customers use 63/37. Fascinating. It raises the question of why there is such a huge difference in the pricing of Kester's solders. If you're referring to widely different prices from different suppliers, it's the same with any product or service, of course. When the 99% isopropyl topic come up, I plugged it into google's "shopping" tab. Prices ranged from 2.79 to 14.50 for a pint of the stuff. That isn't what I meant. There's a 20% difference in the price between Kester's 60/40 and 63/37 solders. Oh, so you didn't read my post after all. To reiterate, 63/37 is 13.80, 60/40 is 13.30. That's uh, let's see, oh yeah, less than 4%. |
#51
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news In article , "William Sommerwerck" wrote: To compare apples to apples, I called my supplier yesterday for current pricing: 63/37, $13.80/lb. 60/40, $13.30/lb. I also asked how many people were buying 60/40, and she confirmed that well over 90% of customers use 63/37. Fascinating. It raises the question of why there is such a huge difference in the pricing of Kester's solders. If you're referring to widely different prices from different suppliers, it's the same with any product or service, of course. When the 99% isopropyl topic come up, I plugged it into google's "shopping" tab. Prices ranged from 2.79 to 14.50 for a pint of the stuff. That isn't what I meant. There's a 20% difference in the price between Kester's 60/40 and 63/37 solders. Oh, so you didn't read my post after all. To reiterate, 63/37 is 13.80, 60/40 is 13.30. That's uh, let's see, oh yeah, less than 4%. GASP! Yes, I DID read your post, and Yes, I did understand exactly what you said. To wit... that there was almost no difference in the prices of the 60/40 and 63/37 solders from your supplier. That's why I raised the question about why there WAS such a large difference between Kester's solders. I think it was plain from what I wrote that I was wondering why there was almost no difference in your supplier's prices for solders from (presumably) the same manufacturer, while Kester solders had a 20% difference. (See above.) Must /everything/ be explained in excruciating detail five times over? This happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and not just to me. It's because people don't read carefully, then think about what they've read. Believe me, I sometimes am about to respond to a post, then discover I'm mis-understood it. |
#52
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote: Oh, so you didn't read my post after all. To reiterate, 63/37 is 13.80, 60/40 is 13.30. That's uh, let's see, oh yeah, less than 4%. GASP! Yes, I DID read your post, and Yes, I did understand exactly what you said. To wit... that there was almost no difference in the prices of the 60/40 and 63/37 solders from your supplier. That's why I raised the question about why there WAS such a large difference between Kester's solders. I think it was plain from what I wrote that I was wondering why there was almost no difference in your supplier's prices for solders from (presumably) the same manufacturer, while Kester solders had a 20% difference. (See above.) Must /everything/ be explained in excruciating detail five times over? I think you may have conflated two different issues here, when comparing 60/40 and 63/37. One is the question of manufacture, one is the question of distribution channel (hobby/retail vs. industrial). I just did a lookup on Newark's website, comparing 23 AWG solders manufactured by Kester. Take a look at the catalog page at http://www.newark.com/jsp/content/pr...c127&page=2016 and the section on "44 series RA rosin core solder". They have both 63/37 and 60/40 alloy versions of many of the same sizes. For the thinner-gauge varities, the prices for the two alloys seem to be quite close... e.g. for 25-gauge, the 60/40 is $34.15 and the 63/37 is $34.72 (about 1%). 21-gauge is $24.54 and $25.17 (about 2%), 18-gauge is $22.80 and $24.77 respectively (about 9%). The only really big disparity in favor of 60/40 is in the heavy 16-gauge size ($23.20 and $32.53 respectively). Perhaps this reflects the fact that 16-gauge is used less commonly these days, or perhaps Newark is just low in stock? So... based on this evidence, it looks to me as if Kester does not necessarily have a major price skew between the two alloys, at least not in the gauges typically used for PC board assembly. This suggests that the price disparity you cited, may have much more to do with the pricing policies of the one retailer you mentioned (MCM) than they do with the manufacturer's wholesale price. MCM might be pricing the 63/37 as a "premium" product, or perhaps they sell less of it and so tend to amortize the per-SKU overhead costs over a smaller nmber of units? This happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and not just to me. It's because people don't read carefully, then think about what they've read. Believe me, I sometimes am about to respond to a post, then discover I'm mis-understood it. Yup. Happens to me too. As a language, English has enough room for ambiguity and misunderstanding to make life interesting at times. FYI, when one of the earlier posters said he'd checked solder prices "from his supplier", I don't think he stated a brand at all... and yet your reply seems to have assumed that he was *not* referring to Kester. If you did assume that (and I'm only sorta assuming that you assumed it :-) it might have misled you a bit. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#53
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
Jasen Betts wrote: sounds like bull****, alpha particles aren't energetic enough to get even 1/10 of the way through the encapsulation on a RAM chip. There were some problems with first-generation DRAM chips back in the late 1970s, which were attributed to alpha-particle upsets due to radio-isotopes in the encapsulating materials. Cite: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1479948 Not having read the article I don't know how close to the silicon it was necessary for the radioisotope in question to be, in order for the resulting alpha particle to disrupt the chip's operation. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#54
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
I think you may have conflated two different issues here, when
comparing 60/40 and 63/37. One is the question of manufacture, one is the question of distribution channel (hobby/retail vs. industrial). I didn't conflate the issues, as the latter hadn't been raised when I first brought up the point. So... based on this evidence, it looks to me as if Kester does not necessarily have a major price skew between the two alloys, at least not in the gauges typically used for PC board assembly. It does in the case of the MCM catalog, at least for the gauge I looked at. Other companies show similar huge disparities. It makes little sense, when the ones you (and Smitty) cited are so close. FYI, when one of the earlier posters said he'd checked solder prices "from his supplier", I don't think he stated a brand at all... and yet your reply seems to have assumed that he was *not* referring to Kester. If you did assume that (and I'm only sorta assuming that you assumed it :-) it might have misled you a bit. I wasn't mislead. Given the differenc in price, it was obvious it wasn't Kester. |
#55
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On Jul 15, 10:31*am, "Robbie Hatley"
wrote: "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 If the flux burns it becomes conductive and WILL mess up CMOS modestly high impedance nodes. That's why i clean it off. G² |
#56
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:14:45 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: I have some rolls of solder around the shop that are not well labeled or identified. Rather than risk leaving corrosive flux on a board, I prefer to clean most everything. I just tossed solder like that into my solder pot. Right. Great idea. I did that once and regretted it. I tossed most of a 1 lb roll of Ersin 362 (62/38) rosin core solder into the wire lead tinning solder pot. The roll had gotten splattered with acid and was leaking flux. The result was a large cloud of noxious smog, as all the rosin simultaneously went up in smoke. You've seen the smoke produced during soldering. Now multiply that by a few thousand times. If it had set off the smoke alarm, I would have really been in trouble. I don't know the correct way to recycle and remelt old solder. Whatever it is, should probably be done outdoors. I would NEVER add a pound of solder to an existing solder pot at one time. When I bought my 6" diameter solder pot I had enough used solder to more than fill it. It came from the use of a smaller solder pot to salvage ICs from scrap PC boards. Float the board, then tap the corner of the solder pot. A bunch of solder balls hit the aluminum plate the pot was on. I would use a large pair of channel lock pliers to pick up the hot pot to pour out some solder into a small aluminum pan, then dump all the loose solder into the pot. Solder pots are required to have an exhaust fan, in industrial settings in my area. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. |
#57
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: "Smitty Two" wrote in message news In article , "William Sommerwerck" wrote: To compare apples to apples, I called my supplier yesterday for current pricing: 63/37, $13.80/lb. 60/40, $13.30/lb. I also asked how many people were buying 60/40, and she confirmed that well over 90% of customers use 63/37. Fascinating. It raises the question of why there is such a huge difference in the pricing of Kester's solders. If you're referring to widely different prices from different suppliers, it's the same with any product or service, of course. When the 99% isopropyl topic come up, I plugged it into google's "shopping" tab. Prices ranged from 2.79 to 14.50 for a pint of the stuff. That isn't what I meant. There's a 20% difference in the price between Kester's 60/40 and 63/37 solders. Oh, so you didn't read my post after all. To reiterate, 63/37 is 13.80, 60/40 is 13.30. That's uh, let's see, oh yeah, less than 4%. GASP! Yes, I DID read your post, and Yes, I did understand exactly what you said. To wit... that there was almost no difference in the prices of the 60/40 and 63/37 solders from your supplier. That's why I raised the question about why there WAS such a large difference between Kester's solders. I think it was plain from what I wrote that I was wondering why there was almost no difference in your supplier's prices for solders from (presumably) the same manufacturer, while Kester solders had a 20% difference. (See above.) Must /everything/ be explained in excruciating detail five times over? This happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and not just to me. It's because people don't read carefully, then think about what they've read. Believe me, I sometimes am about to respond to a post, then discover I'm mis-understood it. AH-SO! At last we're communicating. Yep, usenet is tough that way sometimes. Here's the missing piece: The solder I buy IS KESTER. The EXACT same stuff that you buy. Only two differences: The disparity in formulations is less, and the price is roughly half. |
#58
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: I wasn't mislead. Given the differenc in price, it was obvious it wasn't Kester. But it was, grasshopper. You paid too much, because you bought it from a hobby supplier. |
#59
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
AH-SO! At last we're communicating. Yep, usenet is tough that way
sometimes. Here's the missing piece: The solder I buy IS KESTER. The EXACT same stuff that you buy. Only two differences: The disparity in formulations is less, and the price is roughly half. Fascinating. Perhaps someone, somewhere will have an explanation. |
#60
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
I wasn't mislead. Given the differenc in price, it was obvious
it wasn't Kester. But it was, grasshopper. You paid too much, because you bought it from a hobby supplier. Actually, I bought the solder at least 20 years ago, and I believe it came from an electronics-supply store, not a "hobby supplier". I also paid less than $10. |
#61
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
: AH-SO! At last we're communicating. Yep, usenet is tough that way sometimes. Here's the missing piece: The solder I buy IS KESTER. The EXACT same stuff that you buy. Only two differences: The disparity in formulations is less, and the price is roughly half. Fascinating. Perhaps someone, somewhere will have an explanation. different businesses mark up at different prices. name brands often go at higher rates,and less popular items may get priced lower to move them. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
#62
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote: "William Sommerwerck" wrote in : AH-SO! At last we're communicating. Yep, usenet is tough that way sometimes. Here's the missing piece: The solder I buy IS KESTER. The EXACT same stuff that you buy. Only two differences: The disparity in formulations is less, and the price is roughly half. Fascinating. Perhaps someone, somewhere will have an explanation. different businesses mark up at different prices. name brands often go at higher rates,and less popular items may get priced lower to move them. 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. |
#63
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
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. |
#64
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
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. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it. :-) |
#65
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
William Sommerwerck wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solder This got my attention: Some alloys, namely of lead and to some degree tin, contain small but significant amounts of radioisotope impurities. The radioisotopes undergoing alpha decay are a concern due to their tendency to cause soft errors. Polonium-210 is especially problematic; lead-210 beta decays to bismuth-210 which then beta decays to polonium-210, an intense emitter of alpha particles. Uranium-238 and thorium-232 are other significant contaminants of lead containing alloys. Oh swell.... something else to worry about. sounds like bull****, alpha particles aren't energetic enough to get even 1/10 of the way through the encapsulation on a RAM chip. 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. Same with steel from old battleships. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net |
#66
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" 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. |
#67
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" 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. |
#68
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
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. |
#69
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
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. |
#70
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
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. |
#71
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:28:06 -0500, the renowned Jim Yanik
wrote: "William Sommerwerck" wrote in : AH-SO! At last we're communicating. Yep, usenet is tough that way sometimes. Here's the missing piece: The solder I buy IS KESTER. The EXACT same stuff that you buy. Only two differences: The disparity in formulations is less, and the price is roughly half. Fascinating. Perhaps someone, somewhere will have an explanation. different businesses mark up at different prices. name brands often go at higher rates,and less popular items may get priced lower to move them. Solder prices for single pound lots are all over the map- they change with voltatile metal prices and some distributors may have old stock. http://www.lme.com/tin_graphs.asp http://www.lme.com/lead_graphs.asp There's been roughly a 4:1 price range in lead and 2.5:1 in tin over the past three years. Currently tin costs about 10x as much as lead, so you'd expect about a 10-11% price difference due to cost of the metals. At current prices there's around $5.30 worth of metals in a pound of solder, of which only 30 cents or so is lead. There's also the plastic spool, the cardboard box and 10-15 grams of flux. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
#72
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:28:06 -0500, the renowned Jim Yanik wrote: "William Sommerwerck" wrote in : AH-SO! At last we're communicating. Yep, usenet is tough that way sometimes. Here's the missing piece: The solder I buy IS KESTER. The EXACT same stuff that you buy. Only two differences: The disparity in formulations is less, and the price is roughly half. Fascinating. Perhaps someone, somewhere will have an explanation. different businesses mark up at different prices. name brands often go at higher rates,and less popular items may get priced lower to move them. Solder prices for single pound lots are all over the map- they change with voltatile metal prices and some distributors may have old stock. http://www.lme.com/tin_graphs.asp http://www.lme.com/lead_graphs.asp There's been roughly a 4:1 price range in lead and 2.5:1 in tin over the past three years. Currently tin costs about 10x as much as lead, so you'd expect about a 10-11% price difference due to cost of the metals. At current prices there's around $5.30 worth of metals in a pound of solder, of which only 30 cents or so is lead. There's also the plastic spool, the cardboard box and 10-15 grams of flux. And then there is the shipping. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#73
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote: At current prices there's around $5.30 worth of metals in a pound of solder, No wonder I haven't seen those $4.95/lb. bar solder sales lately. I used to wait for those and stock up a couple hundred pounds for the soldering machine. |
#74
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
There's been roughly a 4:1 price range in lead and 2.5:1 in tin
over the past three years. Currently tin costs about 10x as much as lead, so you'd expect about a 10-11% price difference due to cost of the metals. At current prices there's around $5.30 worth of metals in a pound of solder, of which only 30 cents or so is lead. There's also the plastic spool, the cardboard box and 10-15 grams of flux. The fog is lifting... |
#75
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:44:51 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: 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. --- In the lead frame? |
#76
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
William Sommerwerck wrote:
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. Only a problem with flip-chip (C4) bonding. At one point I worked in the packaging research group at IBM Yorktown lab (no, I'm not a packaging guy--it's a long story). Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net |
#77
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:47:15 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: 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. Only a problem with flip-chip (C4) bonding. At one point I worked in the packaging research group at IBM Yorktown lab (no, I'm not a packaging guy--it's a long story). The C4 balls were lead-indium, IIRC. |
#79
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:32:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:47:15 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: 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. Only a problem with flip-chip (C4) bonding. At one point I worked in the packaging research group at IBM Yorktown lab (no, I'm not a packaging guy--it's a long story). The C4 balls were lead-indium, IIRC. Lead-tin eutectic in my era (1987-2008), followed by gold-tin currently, IIRC. The last time I dealt with any of this was in the mid '70s. Before TCMs, even (LEMs). I'm pretty sure they were lead-indium, but there may have been tin in there too. There was also an issue of polonium contamination causing uncorrectable L1 errors, but that's a completely different issue. |
#80
Posted to sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
Fred Abse wrote: On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:47:09 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote: I would NEVER add a pound of solder to an existing solder pot at one time. When I bought my 6" diameter solder pot I had enough used solder to more than fill it. It came from the use of a smaller solder pot to salvage ICs from scrap PC boards. Float the board, then tap the corner of the solder pot. A bunch of solder balls hit the aluminum plate the pot was on. I would use a large pair of channel lock pliers to pick up the hot pot to pour out some solder into a small aluminum pan, then dump all the loose solder into the pot. So you don't really know the composition of the solder in the pot, or how much copper, gold, etc. contamination there is? No need to, really. it was used to salvage parts and tin wire. Most of the boards were soldered with 80/20 so i had to add some scrap lead from time to time, to lower the melting point. The other metals didn't hurt anything. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Solder pot | UK diy | |||
why 60-40 solder? | Electronics Repair | |||
Solder? | Home Repair | |||
Old Solder | Home Repair | |||
SMD Solder | Electronics Repair |