Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Joerg Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 08:12:23 -0700 Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net ntoipYCDOkqTXH7dj1wKbAp9NWLUr9PNJ21jTekdvQeZokVkf+ Cancel-Lock: sha1:/08+ELRIt2V7DPdd4RrZ28n9gL4= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070728 Thunderbird/2.0.0.6 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.electronics.design:461811 On 2017-05-25 18:04, JM wrote: > On 26/05/2017 01:00, Joerg wrote: >> On 2017-05-24 11:41, 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? >>>> >>> >>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/0pmth1yw9kp8m8w/For%20Joerg.pdf?dl=0 >> >> >> Only says "We can’t find what you’re looking for" :-( >> > > These links have a timeout. > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/d3xpyn3ksjjbtl8/For%20Joerg.pdf?dl=0 Thanks, that's it! -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/