Electronics Forum | Fri Apr 29 13:37:46 EDT 2005 | russ
What core size are you using with the solder wire? I would recommend that you use a "66". It is very helpful to get the area hot prior to adding the solder.
Electronics Forum | Fri May 13 15:43:17 EDT 2005 | billscheu
just use 63 37 solder for repair. I do not know of any specification which prohibits this and until the people who create the rules change them this is the best. I thought mancorp was an importer of equipment and am thinking they do not have the i
Electronics Forum | Thu May 26 04:24:47 EDT 2005 | Rob
I beg to differ but the old metcals do handle lead free with no problems - Unless we have a rogue batch of ancient super MX500's.
Electronics Forum | Mon Apr 25 12:11:29 EDT 2005 | lyrtech
Hi, Does anyone know the rules to calibrate a feeder without any expensive jig test? We want to do that by our operators. Does anyone know the procedure? Thanks
Electronics Forum | Tue Apr 26 03:28:26 EDT 2005 | Just mee
What test is applicable to check for QFN package with NiPdAu leadframe if leads/pad are solderable? what are the options other than dip and look solderability testing? Thanks,
Electronics Forum | Tue Apr 26 04:00:13 EDT 2005 | dj_jago
You could use a meniscograph to test for wetability. It will give you a tangible measure of the solderability of the component. Just do a net search for 'meniscograph'.
Electronics Forum | Tue May 03 09:30:50 EDT 2005 | BK
Go to Google Type Nanostar Select Logic Packaging-Nanostar In middle of page select SMT&2nd Level Relability of Nanostar You should find a 35 page PDF file that tells u everything. If not post your e-mail and I'll sent it to u
Electronics Forum | Tue May 03 15:15:33 EDT 2005 | dphilbrick
The biggest problem is getting paste on the board. We ran a board that had 8 per and would get an occasional insufficient solder joint. I would look into doing the boards with something like a SiPad process (www.sipad.net) My $0.02
Electronics Forum | Wed Apr 27 12:26:49 EDT 2005 | jdumont
Square you say? Wouldnt this give less paste deposition than a circle and basically reduce the standoff height the same as making the pad bigger? Would using a type 4 paste for this size stencil aperture (.013") be a good idea? Thanks JD
Electronics Forum | Wed Apr 27 13:50:01 EDT 2005 | russ
You will want the square in this case to be .013" with rounded corners (slight overprint). I do not see why you would need a type 4 paste for this. the aperture as it sits should release well but obviously there is something wrong.
