Earlier quoted context omitted.
NASA and aviation in general are later adopters of lead-free. It definitely wouldn't have been reflected in older standards.
On several levels. Avgas is still leaded.
NASA's Through-Hole Workmanship Req (2002)
41–50 of 60 posts
Re: NASA's Through-Hole Workmanship Req (2002)
#42Was curious what their treatment was going to be regarding tin whiskers. Not much there (of course this is point in time inspection so it kind of makes sense), but a quick google revealed quite a bit of study: https://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/ I thought they were just one of those low probability items until a Sunday morning when I was running live audio for a church service. Singer was mid verse and BOOOOM! Huge boomin…
> Was curious what their treatment was going to be regarding tin whiskers. Not much there (of course this is point in time inspection so it kind of makes sense) Did you read their specs? There's a small part about whiskers that already convey enough meaning: > UNACCEPTABLE WHISKER > A whisker is a slender needle-shaped metallic growth between a conductor and a land. Typically the result of mechanical stresses in high…
The issue with whiskers is that they grow over time (which is why I mentioned 'point in time'). I didn't see anything in there about solder alloy selection or any other mitigation.
Re: NASA's Through-Hole Workmanship Req (2002)
#43Every now and again this pops up on a different forum. I wonder how much is actually hand soldered any more vs. pick and place machines with SMT.
For low volume, it can cost more to set up the P&P machine, deal with alignments, check first articles, etc. than just soldering a few (dozen) board by hand. And there are a lot of small companies in niche markets whose annual production of a PC board might be in the single digits. That and, people who hand solder stuff all day are fast .
I’ve see the videos on IG every now and then on their hand soldering skills. So fast!
Re: NASA's Through-Hole Workmanship Req (2002)
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the HN guidelines: 'Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."' It doesn't add anything to the discussion. And in this case it was very clear that the OP read the article and just missed that part. Your comment would have been just as informative and less snarky if it was simply: There's a small part…
> > Did you read the specs? > 'Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."' Not an article, but specs. You read specs carefully, you don't skim, especially to write long paragraphs about your personal experience > And in this case it was very clear that the OP read the article I disagree. Not read, skimmed…
You're factually wrong here. So the question would be where did this go off the rails?
Re: NASA's Through-Hole Workmanship Req (2002)
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
On several levels. Avgas is still leaded.
Wow, that's disgusting.
Re: NASA's Through-Hole Workmanship Req (2002)
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
NASA and aviation in general are later adopters of lead-free. It definitely wouldn't have been reflected in older standards.
On several levels. Avgas is still leaded.
Essentially, we still don't have a viable replacement. The FAA was tasked with coming up with one by the end of 2018, but has been extended to 2021.
Re: NASA's Through-Hole Workmanship Req (2002)
#47Re: NASA's Through-Hole Workmanship Req (2002)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was curious what their treatment was going to be regarding tin whiskers. Not much there (of course this is point in time inspection so it kind of makes sense) Did you read their specs? There's a small part about whiskers that already convey enough meaning: > UNACCEPTABLE WHISKER > A whisker is a slender needle-shaped metallic growth between a conductor and a land. Typically the result of mechanical stresses in high…
I did see that part, which is why I said 'not much' instead of 'nothing'. The issue with whiskers is that they grow over time (which is why I mentioned 'point in time'). I didn't see anything in there about solder alloy selection or any other mitigation.
Sorry for the misunderstanding then.
Re: NASA's Through-Hole Workmanship Req (2002)
#49Was curious what their treatment was going to be regarding tin whiskers. Not much there (of course this is point in time inspection so it kind of makes sense), but a quick google revealed quite a bit of study: https://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/ I thought they were just one of those low probability items until a Sunday morning when I was running live audio for a church service. Singer was mid verse and BOOOOM! Huge boomin…
Use leaded solder and either inspect the joint for complete coverage or solder dip the part beforehand. Then, conformal coat the circuit card with sufficient thickness for tin whisker mitigation. Conformal coat really is the saving grace for tin whiskers. It's not perfect, a whisker can push through sometimes but then the whisker has to push back through the conformal coat again which is much harder.
About leaded solder and the environment: "Current alternatives are worse for the environment",page16 https://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker./reference/tech_papers/2011-ko...
Re: NASA's Through-Hole Workmanship Req (2002)
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. Damn. I hope nobody at NASA looks at some of the repairs I've had to make on my riding mower. I blame the work angles of some of those jobs...
If it makes you feel any better, I burned my hand pretty bad when mowing the lawn as a kid when my dad’s exhaust pipe repair fell off. No harm, no foul is what I mean to say, haha.