| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
Why are there these two very similar solders? Is there any situation
where one is better than the other? I understand the eutectic nature of 63/37, and I wonder if/when 60/40 might ever be better to use. --- Joe |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
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. Good luck and have fun. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
John Doe 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. Good luck and have fun. 60/40 was the standard for many years, until it was learned that 63/37 was more accurately eutectic. 60/40 was kept around as a legacy product since millions of customers worldwide had written the spec into their procedural documentation. But distributors (in my part of the world anyway) stopped stocking much of a 60/40 selection about 20 years ago. As for water soluble flux, it has at least one significant drawback; it is corrosive at room temperature (unlike RMA for example which is only "active" when heated.) Therefore, any flux residue left on the board (or whatever you're soldering) will lead to corrosion. Without full immersion in a sonic tank, it can be difficult or impossible to wash it all away. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
|
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
As far as I know, no.
63/37 has been "known" to be eutectic for at least 50 years. (I read about it in "Popular Electronics" as a wee babe.) 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. Unless you're Really Cheap, 63/37 is always preferable. It has slightly greater mechanical strength, too, though this is rarely a consideration. J Gordon Holt, who founded "The Stereophile", had his own theories about soldering. Back in the days when people assembled vacuum-tube equipment from kits, he recommended simply poking component leads through the lugs, and soldering them without crimping them. His reasoning was that, if the component ever needed replacement, you wouldn't have to fiddle with uncrimping it. (If you've ever unsoldered old equipment, you know what a tsuris this can be.) The "catch", of course, is that both the lug and the lead have to be very clean, and you're more likely to get a cold or incomplete connection. This is a situation where you would /definitely/ want to use 63/37. While I'm on the subject... I once asked the late Bob Tucker, * who wrote the user manuals for Dynaco, why the soldering instructions were, at one point, obviously in the "wrong" sequence. He explained that Dynaco's "policy" was that, once a lug had three wires in it, it was to be soldered. There was otherwise too-great a chance of it being overlooked and remaining unsoldered, only to cause problems down the line. * Bob, who passed on in the late '80s, was one of the nicest, most-gracious people you could ever hope to meet. He was, perhaps surprisingly, also one of the handsomest men I've ever seen -- by comparison, most actors and fashion models are plain -- but he didn't seem aware of it. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On 15 Jul 2010 08:04:55 GMT, John Doe 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. Good luck and have fun. Water soluble flux is conductive. You should wash it off not just wipe it. -- Boris |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On 15 Jul 2010 08:04:55 GMT, John Doe 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 |
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) |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
"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 |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
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. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On Jul 15, 11:42*am, John Larkin
wrote: On 15 Jul 2010 08:04:55 GMT, John Doe 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. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article , George Herold wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:42=A0am, John Larkin wrote: On 15 Jul 2010 08:04:55 GMT, John Doe wrote: none given.now (Joe) wrote: Why are there these two very similar solders? =A0Is there any situation where one is better than the other? =A0 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. I had a lot of problems with high Z circuitry. Got under the pads. Some boards I had to clean/dry 10 times. In the interim, some of the cleaner I used got into some caps and started their own circuit mess. greg |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On 15/07/2010 5:54 PM, Joe wrote:
Why are there these two very similar solders? Is there any situation where one is better than the other? I understand the eutectic nature of 63/37, and I wonder if/when 60/40 might ever be better to use. --- Joe PeterD mentioned the significant parameter in his post. because it is a eutectic mixture 63/37 does not have "much of a plastic state" this means it is more sensitive to movement in the joint while the solder is cooling - if the connections are unstable it forms more dry joints. This was important with point to point wiring but is now less important with PCBs. You can normally use either solder for any job but the "old timers" experience would suggest 60/40 is the better choice for wiring front panels, flying leads and the like and 63/37 would be better for heat sensitive components. (for the obnoxious who will claim there is no difference - please note that those doing the jobs *did* find a difference and thought it significant enough to bother about) |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
Why are there these two very similar solders? Is there any situation where one is better than the other? I understand the eutectic nature of 63/37, and I wonder if/when 60/40 might ever be better to use. My understanding is that 60/40 has somewhat better wetting properties than 63/37, at least with some contact materials. Some people prefer it for that reason. 63/37 makes a sharp transition between liquid state and solid state at a single, well-defined temperature. 60/40 goes through a transition between these two states over a significant range of temperature - in between the fully-solid and fully-liquid states it can have a somewhat mushy texture. Some people feel that 60/40 brings with it a somewhat higher risk of creating a "cold" solder joint (inadequate fusion with the contact surfaces) if the joint is moved or stress while the solder is dropping through its mushy-state temperature region. -- 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! |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
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. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
: 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 |
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. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
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. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article ,
Robbie Hatley wrote: 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. Strange to see this in print, as everyone seems to spend ages removing flux. I don't and have never had a problem. -- *The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
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.) |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article , "William Sommerwerck" 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 |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
: 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. maybe the price difference is due to "new and improved" rather than any other reason. BTW,63/37 has the lowest melt point of all the tin/lead alloys. 361 deg F -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
: 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.) 91% is what CVS sells,I don't recall the price,though. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
Maybe the price difference is due to "new and improved"
rather than any other reason. No, eutectic solder has always been more expensive, and the reason has always been that tin is more-expensive than lead. 63/37 has the lowest melt point of all tin/lead alloys, 361 F Exactly. That was my point, and MCM's error. I remember the little phase diagram in the Popular Electronics article. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
91% is what CVS sells. I don't recall the price, though.
Drug stores periodically have sales. You should be able to get a pint bottle of 91% for less than a dollar. No point in the 75% stuff. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On Jul 15, 3:40*pm, (GregS) wrote:
In article , George Herold wrote: On Jul 15, 11:42=A0am, John Larkin wrote: On 15 Jul 2010 08:04:55 GMT, John Doe wrote: none given.now (Joe) wrote: Why are there these two very similar solders? =A0Is there any situation where one is better than the other? =A0 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. I had a lot of problems with high Z circuitry. Got under the pads. Some boards I had to clean/dry 10 times. In the interim, some of the cleaner I used got into some caps and started their own circuit mess. greg- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What kind of flux were you using? I want to try some tests, just laying down solder and flux gobs on 0805 SMD pads and measure the resistance. Then cleaning and remeasuring. (I've got a bunch of other 'fires' that I'm putting out so this may be a few days.) George H. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message 4... "William Sommerwerck" wrote in : 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.) 91% is what CVS sells,I don't recall the price,though. -- Jim Yanik The Meijer store here in Illinois has 99% isopropyl. It is normally about $1.25 for a 16 oz. bottle but occasionally they run sales of 2 for 1 at that same price. I stocked up with about a dozen bottles the last time they ran that sale. I avoid the lower % stuff because it is not always diluted with just water but sometimes oils and skin lotions. These are to be avoided for electronics work. David |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
I avoid the lower % stuff because it is not always diluted
with just water but sometimes oils and skin lotions. These are to be avoided for electronics work. This is usually labelled "rubbing alcohol". |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:31:05 -0700, "Robbie Hatley"
wrote: Rosin flux can be removed with 99pct isopropyl alcohol ($1 a bottle at your corner drug store). I prefer the hardware store stuff in the metal cans: http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3958489 More expensive but always 99% (ignoring what moisture it absorbs from the air). But frankly, I recommend NOT removing the rosin flux scum. Leave it on; it's inert, airproof, waterproof, sweatproof, so it protects the joint. 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. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
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". 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. I like 63/37 because some stuff I do I like it as low a temp as possible. Deja vu. I worked for BFEC at NASA site, and went to NASA ssoldering school. I would guess 60/40 would be the norm. greg |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
I like 63/37 because some stuff I do I like it as low a temp
as possible. Allmost all my soldering is repairs; cold joints seem more likely when you're fixing something. Deja vu. I worked for BFEC at NASA site, and went to NASA soldering school. I would guess 60/40 would be the norm. Probably. I never had to solder, so I never went to school. Which site? When? I worked from 1974 through 1978. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article , George Herold wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:40=A0pm, (GregS) wrote: In article = ..com, George Herold wrote: On Jul 15, 11:42=3DA0am, John Larkin wrote: On 15 Jul 2010 08:04:55 GMT, John Doe wrote: none given.now (Joe) wrote: Why are there these two very similar solders? =3DA0Is there any situation where one is better than the other? =3DA0 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. =A0Production did a few with their favorite water based flux... No good! =A0Now I have to convince them to go back to the old standard. =A0 The new ROHS fluxes seem to be even worse. =A0I measured a few meg ohms between pads that had been 'cleaned'.... NOT. I had a lot of problems with high Z circuitry. Got under the pads. Some boards I had to clean/dry 10 times. In the interim, some of the clea= ner I used got into some caps and started their own circuit mess. greg- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What kind of flux were you using? I want to try some tests, just laying down solder and flux gobs on 0805 SMD pads and measure the resistance. Then cleaning and remeasuring. (I've got a bunch of other 'fires' that I'm putting out so this may be a few days.) The boards were commercially made with water based flux. I had to fix them. They actually laid out the boards, which was a mistake. greg |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article , "William Sommerwerck" wrote:
I like 63/37 because some stuff I do I like it as low a temp as possible. Allmost all my soldering is repairs; cold joints seem more likely when you're fixing something. Deja vu. I worked for BFEC at NASA site, and went to NASA soldering school. I would guess 60/40 would be the norm. Probably. I never had to solder, so I never went to school. Which site? When? I worked from 1974 through 1978. http://zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/ |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
Which site? When? I worked from 1974 through 1977.
http://zekfrivolous.com/goldstone Did you ever change the klystron frequency from the control panel (there were six buttons along the bottom), rather than going out to the transmitter? If so, you used one of the improvements I installed. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
"GregS" recommends for flux removal: 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. And then you accidentally plug the 120VAC into the 5VDC output of a voltage regulator, which promptly explodes and emits flames and smoke, and you just have time to say "oh wow, man, pretty fireworks" before the lights go out and the boss comes storming in saying "What the hell is going on in here? Why is that circuit board flaming like that? Someone grab the fire extinguisher!" Yep, ethanol works wonders, but it's probably not best for job security. I think I'll stick with the isopropanol. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
In article , "William Sommerwerck" wrote:
Which site? When? I worked from 1974 through 1977. http://zekfrivolous.com/goldstone Did you ever change the klystron frequency from the control panel (there were six buttons along the bottom), rather than going out to the transmitter? If so, you used one of the improvements I installed. I never ran that, but do recall them tuning them up. Something rings a bell though about mods. As the 80's rolled through everything was remote controled off site. I do remember the time I pushed a button on one of the antenna motors, and everything went black for miles. I also remember the time one would go outside and point at the falling Skylab, and the other person would try to move the antenna and lock on to it. What with the 1 degree beamwidth was impossible. We were using Norads predicts and they were too far off to be able to use. Somebody finally locked onto the spacecraft and finally got good predicts. I also remember the time we tracked the moon with a wrench. For a while. Big 85 ft.antenna made in Pittsburgh, as was much of the stuff made in the USA back then. greg |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:31:05 -0700, "Robbie Hatley" wrote: Rosin flux can be removed with 99pct isopropyl alcohol ($1 a bottle at your corner drug store). I prefer the hardware store stuff in the metal cans: http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3958489 More expensive but always 99% (ignoring what moisture it absorbs from the air). But frankly, I recommend NOT removing the rosin flux scum. Leave it on; it's inert, airproof, waterproof, sweatproof, so it protects the joint. 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. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
On 16/07/2010 7:35 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
"William wrote in : 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". 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 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. Either that, or you believe or antecedents were morons, who while they knew about the eutectic mixture, were too stupid to use i,t 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. |
60/40 vs. 63/37 Solder
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. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter