Groups > sci.electronics.design > #461831

Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC

From	Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
Newsgroups	sci.electronics.design
Subject	Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC
Date	2017-05-26 09:53 -0700
Message-ID	<eor4rkFuf3bU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <og4j7p$dl2$1@dont-email.me> <eop98uFhdejU3@mid.individual.net> <og81ls$ond$1@dont-email.me> <eoquluFt2c8U1@mid.individual.net> <og9lcf$rdq$2@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2017-05-26 09:36, rickman wrote:
> Joerg wrote on 5/26/2017 11:07 AM:
>> On 2017-05-25 18:54, rickman wrote:

[...]

>>> My boards are built at a smaller facility and they typically find issues
>>> on a few boards that get hand touched up to fix.  I spoke with a
>>> Motorola guy back when they made a boatload of cell phones and he said
>>> they don't do anything other than test.  So they optimize their process
>>> so they have very few failures and little problem with reliability.  I'm
>>> wondering what they can do to improve their process enough that it's not
>>> worth doing either an automatic camera inspection.
>>>
>>> Seems to me it shouldn't be hard to control the process well enough that
>>> defects are rare.  Any idea what can go wrong that causes these issues?
>>>
>>
>> It's a hand-soldered part so probably dependent on who did the
>> particular job. Their automated SMT soldering process is always nice and
>> of superb quality.
>>
>> I am looking for some ironclad written standard. What I have seen in IPC
>> usually talks about one side only, how the solder joint should look. It
>> doesn't state cases where the solder side looks great but the component
>> side indicates a potential failure down the road, only about barrel
>> fill. I know when it can fail and usually does in the field but there is
>> a slight "convincement issue" :-)
>
> I thought the link JM posted had the full spec including both sides.
>

Yes, it does. I just could not read it because of a time-out issue. 
Today I could.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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