Talk About Network



Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Programming > Forth > Re: The strengt...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 61 of 71 Topic 3977 of 4053
Post > Topic >>

Re: The strengths of FORTH / OT: SMT soldering

by "Robert Miller" <rsmiller@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Apr 4, 2008 at 03:28 PM

"Brad Eckert" <nospaambrad1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:f5737082-cb09-4f66-b602-c99ad3215be8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 soldered SMT parts for a few years with just a soldering iron,
I find that using solder paste makes things much easier.

Thanks Brad,

I had been wondering whether that might be a viable approach.  My concern 
was whether I could dispense a small enough amount of paste manually.
Based 
on what you've said, I'll probably give it a try. What size needle(s) do
you 
use? Have you had any shelf-life problems?  The Digikey catalogue says it 
has to be refrigerated and it has to be shipped  overnight or second day 
air. It sounds like this stuff might get very expensive when used in 
hobbiest quantities if it goes bad between projects.

I don't even use a stencil. Just dab a little blob on each land (the
paste comes in a syringe with a needle), or in the case of fine pitch
parts spread the paste across all of the lands together and hope for
relatively few solder bridges. A hot air rework station melts the
paste just fine, but I think a hot air gun would work. If it isn't hot
enough you could modify its fan to run slower. For small parts like
0402 (I've seen roach poop bigger than 0402) my tweezers have become
slightly magnetized so I can carry most parts to their locations by
letting them hang from the end of the tweezers. Touching the part to
the solder paste takes it off the tweezers and then it's easy enough
to nudge the part into position.

I have an Aoyue hot air rework station from Sparkfun.  I've used it to 
remove a couple of parts but haven't tried reflowing anything yet. 
Sparkfun 
have some good tutorials on the subject of SMT soldering but leave out key

details. I'm not too keen on the idea of using my prototype for 
experimenting with. I don't want to blister the board.  What temperature
do 
you run the hot air at?

At 63, I find the 0603 parts hard enough to deal with visually without the

microscope.  After this experience I wouldn't even think of using 0402 
parts.

Removing solder bridges from fine pitch parts is not a problem. Just
use lots of flux and use a soldering iron to pull away the excess
solder. If it doesn't come off you might need some solder wick, but
usually cleaning the tip will allow the iron to pull off excess
solder. If a fine pitch PCB footprint uses pads that are a lot longer
than needed, you could end up with bridges under the package that are
hard to reflow. QFN packages tend to be easy to reflow, don't have
much problem with solder bridges, and you can clean up excess solder
by running the iron around the perimeter of the package. Those are my
new favorite package.

I've had good success with 0.025" solder wick for removing solder bridges.

I also use a flux pen to soak the pads before I solder.  I can almost see 
the board (Express PCB lead-free) oxidizing before my eyes.  After a
couple 
of weeks exposure to the air, the pads are taking on a yellowish cast. 
I'm 
thinking of cleaning the pads up with steel wool before soldering.  Have
you 
any problems with oxide build-up?

I have four QFN packages to deal with and frankly have been quite worried 
about getting them soldered down correctly.  TI state that soldering the 
ground pad is necessary for heat sinking. Based on your comments, solder 
paste and hot air appear to be the best approach.


Bob Miller




 71 Posts in Topic:
The strengths of FORTH
"Robert Miller"  2008-03-27 15:01:14 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Jonah Thomas <jethomas  2008-03-27 18:47:44 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-03-27 18:46:42 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-03-28 09:30:44 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
mhx@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M  2008-03-28 19:21:30 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-03-28 12:06:51 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
"Paul E. Bennett&quo  2008-03-27 23:21:10 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Brad Eckert <nospaambr  2008-03-27 19:03:48 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Jonah Thomas <jethomas  2008-03-27 22:15:25 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Benny Andersen <a.mail  2008-03-28 09:59:05 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
"dkelvey@[EMAIL PROT  2008-03-28 07:50:09 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
John Doty <jpd@[EMAIL   2008-03-28 09:25:07 
Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
anton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-03-28 20:33:46 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-03-28 09:42:22 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Reinhold Straub <demar  2008-03-29 04:48:43 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
William James <w_a_x_m  2008-03-29 12:00:12 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Reinhold Straub <demar  2008-03-30 05:59:03 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-02 01:04:50 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-07 09:46:32 
Re: Type checking
"David N. Williams&q  2008-04-07 12:20:20 
Re: Type checking
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-07 17:30:08 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Trey Boudreau <trey@[E  2008-04-07 10:07:45 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bernd Paysan <bernd.pa  2008-04-07 18:32:48 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Trey Boudreau <trey@[E  2008-04-07 16:46:00 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-08 08:01:23 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bernd Paysan <bernd.pa  2008-04-08 10:16:55 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
kenney@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-09 06:17:26 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-09 07:39:32 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Mark W. Humphries&q  2008-04-09 09:08:39 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bernd Paysan <bernd.pa  2008-04-09 18:26:48 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Doug Hoffman <no.spam&  2008-04-09 17:07:45 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Albert van der Horst <  2008-04-10 03:49:42 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Doug Hoffman <no.spam&  2008-04-10 06:01:45 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Albert van der Horst <  2008-04-10 21:47:04 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-09 09:19:33 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
John Doty <jpd@[EMAIL   2008-05-01 21:35:15 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3 <m_l_g3@[EMAIL   2008-04-17 17:27:21 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
anton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-08 14:14:30 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-08 07:18:34 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-09 08:49:44 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-08 07:29:56 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-09 07:37:06 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-10 08:04:57 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3 <m_l_g3@[EMAIL   2008-04-09 17:48:14 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-10 07:54:14 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Albert van der Horst <  2008-04-10 21:27:21 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-10 03:30:01 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3 <m_l_g3@[EMAIL   2008-04-10 04:16:59 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-10 18:53:37 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3 <m_l_g3@[EMAIL   2008-04-10 04:48:57 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3 <m_l_g3@[EMAIL   2008-04-11 05:02:01 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-11 08:37:46 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Mikael Nordman <oh2aun  2008-03-28 19:41:15 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Albert van der Horst <  2008-03-28 22:26:26 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
"Robert Miller"  2008-03-29 00:19:04 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Mikael Nordman <oh2aun  2008-03-29 09:56:25 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Aleksej Saushev <asau@  2008-04-01 23:35:18 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Mikael Nordman <oh2aun  2008-04-02 18:39:30 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Aleksej Saushev <asau@  2008-04-06 18:48:28 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Brad Eckert <nospaambr  2008-04-04 09:29:12 
Re: The strengths of FORTH / OT: SMT soldering
"Robert Miller"  2008-04-04 15:28:47 
Re: The strengths of FORTH / OT: SMT soldering
John Doty <jpd@[EMAIL   2008-04-04 13:51:24 
Re: The strengths of FORTH / OT: SMT soldering
Brad Eckert <nospaambr  2008-04-04 16:46:08 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
William James <w_a_x_m  2008-03-29 11:42:17 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
"Robert Miller"  2008-03-29 17:56:46 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Andrew Haley <andrew29  2008-03-30 10:03:42 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Albert van der Horst <  2008-03-30 15:10:11 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Guy Macon <http://www.  2008-03-30 09:54:09 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Jonah Thomas <jethomas  2008-03-30 09:59:30 
Re: The strengths of FORTH / OT: SMT soldering
spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-05 13:49:18 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Jonah Thomas <jethomas  2008-04-08 07:22:41 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Fri May 16 2:28:15 CDT 2008.