Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #461751
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC |
| Date | 2017-05-25 16:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eop98uFhdejU3@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <eolst8Fnsc1U1@mid.individual.net> <og4j7p$dl2$1@dont-email.me> |
On 2017-05-24 11:29, JM wrote: > On 24/05/2017 18:06, Joerg wrote: >> Folks, >> >> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the >> opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential >> inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the solder >> side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the >> hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody would >> know how deep the inward capillary action goes. >> >> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A >> web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a >> time. Any pointers? >> > > IPC-A-610 class 2,3 would require >= 75% vertical hole fill. > I know but they don't talk about 360 degree capillary effect on one side. I don't mean a valley with would be ok and still wetted but really at the pin. In all companies I've ever been at that was flagged as unacceptable. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-24 10:06 -0700
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 19:29 +0100
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-25 16:56 -0700
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 21:54 -0400
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-26 08:07 -0700
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 12:36 -0400
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-26 09:53 -0700
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC speff <spehro@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 11:30 -0700
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-25 16:59 -0700
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 19:41 +0100
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-25 17:01 -0700
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-25 17:00 -0700
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 02:04 +0100
Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-26 08:12 -0700
csiph-web