Received: from PCH.mit.edu (18.7.21.50) by mail.efplus.com (192.168.0.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.485.1; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:11:18 -0700 Received: from PCH.MIT.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 08ON0FP1018907; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 19:00:38 -0400 Received: from outgoing-exchange-5.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-5.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.59]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 08ON0DgB018868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 19:00:14 -0400 Received: from w92exedge3.exchange.mit.edu (W92EXEDGE3.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.7.73.15]) by outgoing-exchange-5.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 08ON0ABh019121 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 19:00:13 -0400 Received: from oc11expo19.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.50) by w92exedge3.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.73.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1293.2; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:59:44 -0400 Received: from oc11exhyb3.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.99) by oc11expo19.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 19:00:11 -0400 Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.55.169) by oc11exhyb3.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 19:00:11 -0400 Received: from DM5PR07CA0149.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:ee::15) by SJ0PR01MB6416.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:a03:295::9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3412.20; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 23:00:09 +0000 Received: from DM3NAM03FT043.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:ee:cafe::8d) by DM5PR07CA0149.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:3:ee::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3412.21 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 23:00:09 +0000 Received: from mail-vs1-f42.google.com (209.85.217.42) by DM3NAM03FT043.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.83.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3412.21 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 23:00:08 +0000 Received: by mail-vs1-f42.google.com with SMTP id x203so270533vsc.11 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:00:08 -0700 (PDT) From: K S To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Sender: "piclist-bounces@mit.edu" Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:59:55 -0700 Subject: Re: [EE] Hand soldering fine pitch packages Thread-Topic: [EE] Hand soldering fine pitch packages Thread-Index: AdaSyALPRSYgygx5TPGjni9imkjjHA== Message-ID: References: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: TS500.efplus4.local X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: Pass X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: mit.edu X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.42 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=209.85.217.42; helo=mail-vs1-f42.google.com; dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ls4EAzFMp2B+QYXEGwyyH4qk78lD18i+UozrxGRc44s=; b=SXm/1TENbWAYeOf4zqNKV78QFPxXQCrr/lgQwhMARmxnuMIbVPLiDDnApMxdsJqlaE 9QgLeUZdibQwUX33AGSg3HamLc49jPW2WEaE0LiyVb4dN5b1Gm/tvPPUiXdd9uKldj24 ketjG+IPhatFyMzmfrG3qSeO0H0xfn/3NOG7KtT9GRRThxFiszvmPTb+t5RIbYw6py4D v/VFKDSSb4ElZihANHOYsypjVibWji0ZORaXLR2Zzdj2pRCSrp33CLMEyE3iFxIQOGS5 5dORbojbEuK50hpdFgYbEHta3VajJECPUdla6f3rR/vm6vbAgUJ4ek6PvVuDcFLAEUgW Ir2Q== authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 209.85.217.42) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; mit.edu; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=gmail.com; mit.edu; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=gmail.com; errors-to: piclist-bounces@mit.edu list-id: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." list-post: x-beenthere: piclist@mit.edu x-mailman-version: 2.1.6 x-received: by 2002:a67:e2c3:: with SMTP id i3mr1312271vsm.13.1600988408193; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:00:08 -0700 (PDT) x-topics: [EE] x-content-filtered-by: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 > Give my method a try sometime. It uses far less solder and solder wick, > I did actually use this method prior to what I do now, and continue to use it for rework if I can't be bothered reworking a whole row - the method I described only works well on whole rows. I really saturate the wick with solder and keep the end nicely trimmed. The main reason I went to the method I described is because I find it gives neater and fuller fillets of solder with greater uniformity - the finished product looks better than a reflowed part. The wicking method, to me at least, seems to leave thinner and less rounded fillets, and the consistency is very dependent on wicking time, etc. I'm sure with enough care this is all cosmetic and none of it matters. It also depends on what else is around the part. The wicking method is sometimes hampered by proximate parts right near the row of pins, the "surface tension vs gravity method" is sometimes hampered by complex happenings at either end of the row. > --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .