Wonder Solder
Ta-Chen Wu
the good source for buying that? I'd like to know if it's a better
choice for soldering my DIY interconnects.
Thanks in advance.
TC Wu
Fear3000
>Can anyone tell me what's in "Wonder Solder" (if it contains silver)...
Yes it does.
>... and the good source for buying that?
The Parts Connection used to sell it; I assume they still do.
>I'd like to know if it's a better choice for soldering my DIY interconnects.
Wonder Solder is an "audiophile approved" product, and is considered to be the
best in some circules. Honestly I've never heard a difference between WS and
Radio Shack silver solder (~$3); I have the same wire terminated with the same
plugs, but with diff. solder [depending on what we had at the time].
Best wishes,
Fear3000
Gruvmyster
> Can anyone tell me what's in "Wonder Solder" (if it contains silver) and
> the good source for buying that?
Silver-bearing solders will normally contain 2% or 4% silver.
> I'd like to know if it's a better choice for soldering my DIY
> interconnects.
Well, it will make absolutely no difference in the sound of the final
product, but there isn't any good reason I can think of not to use it
besides cost...
Doug
--
"People feel more ill will toward their own
for betraying them than they do toward the
enemy for killing them."-- Jean-Francois Steiner
Garthap
>> the good source for buying that?
>
>Silver-bearing solders will normally contain 2% or 4% silver.
>
>> I'd like to know if it's a better choice for soldering my DIY
>> interconnects.
>
>Well, it will make absolutely no difference in the sound of the final
>product, but there isn't any good reason I can think of not to use it
>besides cost..
Tin - lead and silver. The lowest melting point of the combination has 2%
silver. A non lead solder willhave 96% tin and 4% silver but has a high melting
point and from my own use is not to be recommended for normal soldering
requirements.
The silver content in solder has historical reasons not associated with "better
audio sound".
The choice of 60/40 or 63/37 or tin/lead or one with a small silver content is
only a matter of melting point and finished appearance, the silver bearing ones
have a nice "silvery" appearance, not surprisingly.
Garth
Paragon
>
> Can anyone tell me what's in "Wonder Solder" (if it contains silver) and
> choice for soldering my DIY interconnects.
>
> TC Wu
Wonder solder is a tertiary alloy consisting of Ag (silver), Sn (tin)
and Pb (lead). By doping with small amounts of Ag, the melting point
can be increased significantly (melting point of Ag is around 980°C). I
would use a lead rich, lead-tin alloy and forget the silver bearing
alloys.
It's called "Wonder" solder because the manufacturer wonders when the
audiophiles are going to claim that it sounds better than lead-tin.
TC Wu
some silver interconnects for using in my system but wasn't quite sure which
to choose among Radio Shack 2% silver solder (contains lead), Radio Shack 4%
silver (lead-free), and Wonder Solder, to obtain the better results without
making the system sounding too bright. Now, I can go ahead making my own
interconnects with a big peace of mind.
Thanks again.
TC Wu
R.Mui
Actually, the silver content in a solder is not the only thing that counts.
The type of flux agent used will also determine the purity of the solder
joint. WBT silver solder has a 4% fine silver content and a flux agent that
evaporates on soldering, and it's halogen free...thus it won't contaminate
the joint. And with a low melting point is gentle to the wires...you just
don't need to heat the solder for too long.
Richard
Ta-Chen Wu 撰寫於文章 <36618A99...@uicvm.uic.edu>...
Stewart Pinkerton
>>> Can anyone tell me what's in "Wonder Solder" (if it contains silver) and
>>> the good source for buying that?
>>
>>Silver-bearing solders will normally contain 2% or 4% silver.
>>
>>> I'd like to know if it's a better choice for soldering my DIY
>>> interconnects.
>>
>>Well, it will make absolutely no difference in the sound of the final
>>product, but there isn't any good reason I can think of not to use it
>>besides cost..
>
>Tin - lead and silver. The lowest melting point of the combination has 2%
>silver. A non lead solder willhave 96% tin and 4% silver but has a high melting
>point and from my own use is not to be recommended for normal soldering
>requirements.
>
>The silver content in solder has historical reasons not associated with "better
>audio sound".
>
>The choice of 60/40 or 63/37 or tin/lead or one with a small silver content is
>only a matter of melting point and finished appearance, the silver bearing ones
>have a nice "silvery" appearance, not surprisingly.
Well, it's a little more complex than that. If you are using
gold-plated connectors (or component leads), then the gold tends to
leach out if a standard tin/lead solder is used, leading to
embrittlement and ultimately to a 'dry' joint. A small percentage of
silver in the solder prevents this 'gold embrittlement'. An additional
prectical advantage when hand soldering with the 2% silver 'eutectic'
solder is that it solidifies at *exactly* 192 degrees, so you don't
have to hold the joint securely for several seconds while normal
solder goes through its more 'mushy' transition from liquid to solid.
Incidentally, if *all* your joints don't have a nice 'silvery'
appearance, then you ain't doin' it right! :-)
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Garthap
>Incidentally, if *all* your joints don't have a nice 'silvery'
>appearance, then you ain't doin' it right! :-)
>
>
This is BS. There ARE solders that make a fully intact joint and don´t "go dry"
and are not cold and are NOT as shiny as other solders. A tin/lead/copper is
one example. A pure tin/lead or 96/4 tin/silver simply don´t look as pretty as
a tin/lead/silver. But not all solder joints look pretty!
I suggest you go out and buy all the dozens of formulations I have and try them
out.
Garth
Stewart Pinkerton
>Ta-Chen Wu wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone tell me what's in "Wonder Solder" (if it contains silver) and
>> the good source for buying that? I'd like to know if it's a better
>> choice for soldering my DIY interconnects.
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> TC Wu
>
>Wonder solder is a tertiary alloy consisting of Ag (silver), Sn (tin)
>and Pb (lead). By doping with small amounts of Ag, the melting point
>can be increased significantly (melting point of Ag is around 980°C). I
>would use a lead rich, lead-tin alloy and forget the silver bearing
>alloys.
This is not completely accurate. The melting range of a standard 60/40
lead/tin solder alloy is from 183 to 234 degrees Celsius, hence the
long 'slush' period when making conventional joints. The addition of
2% silver and much more tin to make a 'eutectic' 36/62/2
lead/tin/silver alloy *lowers* the melting point to an exact 179
degrees, making for faster solidification and also avoiding
embrittlement when the components being soldered are gold-plated.
This is *not* to be confused with the other standard 'silver solder'
alloy, the high melting point 93.5/5/1.5 lead/tin/silver alloy, which
has a melting range of 296 to 301 degrees. Ain't metallurgy fun? :-)
>It's called "Wonder" solder because the manufacturer wonders when the
>audiophiles are going to claim that it sounds better than lead-tin.
Well, that part may be true, since Rat Shack 2% silver 'Low Melting
Point' solder will certainly work just as well as 'Wonder Solder'.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stew contends:
>
>>Incidentally, if *all* your joints don't have a nice 'silvery'
>>appearance, then you ain't doin' it right! :-)
>>
>>
>This is BS. There ARE solders that make a fully intact joint and don´t "go dry"
>and are not cold and are NOT as shiny as other solders.
Yes, but they should *all* be relatively shiny when newly made, even
if some are shinier than others. If the surface is rough, it's a badly
made joint.
> A tin/lead/copper is
>one example. A pure tin/lead or 96/4 tin/silver simply don´t look as pretty as
>a tin/lead/silver. But not all solder joints look pretty!
>I suggest you go out and buy all the dozens of formulations I have and try them
>out.
I have. I suggest you try improving your soldering technique.........
OTOH, shiny to me may not be 'silvery' to you. Whatever.
Trevor Wilson
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message <36631d2c...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>I have. I suggest you try improving your soldering technique.........
>
**Yeah, well I tried lead free solder a while ago, in an attempt to
eliminate lead from my work place. The joints looked terrible. They were
strong and well done, but just looked very poor to me. I tried a range of
temperatures, but I could never make those joints look nice.
Cheers,
Trevor Wilson
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rage
Garthap
>
>>I have. I suggest you try improving your soldering technique.........
>>
>
Trevor replied:
>
>**Yeah, well I tried lead free solder a while ago, in an attempt to
>eliminate lead from my work place. The joints looked terrible. They were
>strong and well done, but just looked very poor to me. I tried a range of
>temperatures, but I could never make those joints look nice.
>
>Cheers,
>Trevor Wilson
Thanks, Trevor.
There are some solder mixtures, especially the 96/4 you mention, which even a
pro like Stew cannot make look "pretty". Obviously he hasn´t used any of these.
Garth
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message <36631d2c...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>
>>I have. I suggest you try improving your soldering technique.........
>>
>**Yeah, well I tried lead free solder a while ago, in an attempt to
>eliminate lead from my work place. The joints looked terrible. They were
>strong and well done, but just looked very poor to me. I tried a range of
>temperatures, but I could never make those joints look nice.
Hmmmmm. OK, I stopped doing soldering tests some years ago, before
lead-free solders became fashionable, so I'll concede that one.
judy_von
>>eliminate lead from my work place. The joints looked terrible. They were
>>strong and well done, but just looked very poor to me. I tried a range of
>>temperatures, but I could never make those joints look nice.
>>
The worst soldering job I ever did was trying to heat up those heavy Vampire
RCA connectors. I was awestruck watching the soldering station readout drop
130 degrees F in a few seconds. Nothing like a good ol' Vampire heatsink
:-)
The solution was to get a big 40W iron. It wasn't pretty, but it got the
job done. Well, time to get back to inhaling those lead fumes. :-)
Von
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Stewart Pinkerton <a...@borealis.com > wrote:
>Hmmmmm. OK, I stopped doing soldering tests some years ago, before
>lead-free solders became fashionable, so I'll concede that one.
I've made some nice-looking copper pipe joints with the lead-free solder
forced on us in the USA. It does take higher temperature, and more time,
though, and even more careful joint prep.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1998, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Garthap
>Hmmmmm. OK, I stopped doing soldering tests some years ago, before
>lead-free solders became fashionable, so I'll concede that one.
Hi Stew!
What lead-free mixture are you referring to? I悲 seriously like to know the
source for a low temp lead-free solder.
Bye,
Garth
Paragon
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
The silver addition increases the melting point of the tin-lead binary.
Tin has a melt point of 280C, lead 380C, silver something like 980C.
Again, by doping ANY lead-tin binary with small amounts of silver the
melt point will go up. What is so inaccurate about that statement?
Stewart Pinkerton
Garthap
>>What lead-free mixture are you referring to? I悲 seriously like to know the
>>source for a low temp lead-free solder.
>
>As I said, I haven't used lead-free solder.
>
>
You say " lead-free solers became fashionable" in a previous post to which I
asked the above.
I seriously doubt the "fashionable" claim. The only half viable lead-free is
96/4 tin silver which I doubt anyone uses for audio purposes.
Garth
flac...@my-dejanews.com
> >This is BS. There ARE solders that make a fully intact joint and don´t "go
dry"
> >and are not cold and are NOT as shiny as other solders.
Someone has just told me in another forum that a joint inside my computer
monitor may have gone dry and may be affecting its brightness. What does it
mean to "go dry"?
I'm planning a foray in there (staying well away from the big red wire, of
course) with a small iron and some electronic solder I picked up years ago at
Radio Shack. I haven't used it much at all, and not in years in any case. Any
tips from the pros would be greatly appreciated.
--
Mark Hankins
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Garthap <gar...@aol.com> wrote:
>I seriously doubt the "fashionable" claim. The only half viable lead-free is
>96/4 tin silver which I doubt anyone uses for audio purposes.
There are antimony-based soldiers used in plumbing in the US now.
flac...@my-dejanews.com
flac...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Someone has just told me in another forum that a joint inside my computer
> monitor may have gone dry and may be affecting its brightness. What does it
> mean to "go dry"?
Whoops..it was "cold" ... what do both mean?
Garthap
>There are antimony-based soldiers used in plumbing in the US now.
In modern societies they stopped "soldering" water pipes etc. decades ago.
But what is a fashionable lead-free solder used for audio purposes? Or did my
browser send me to rec.plumbing.disposer by mistake? )-:
Garth
Stewart Pinkerton
>> --
>>
>> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
>
>
>The silver addition increases the melting point of the tin-lead binary.
>Tin has a melt point of 280C, lead 380C, silver something like 980C.
>Again, by doping ANY lead-tin binary with small amounts of silver the
>melt point will go up. What is so inaccurate about that statement?
It's flat-out WRONG, that's what's inaccurate about it! Didn't you
even READ my post? As I said before, a 36/62/2 lead/tin/silver alloy
*lowers* the melting point to an exact 179 degrees from the standard
60/40 slush range of 183-234 degrees. It's the eutectic alloy of these
three elements.
Stewart Pinkerton
>I asked:
>>>What lead-free mixture are you referring to? I悲 seriously like to know the
>>>source for a low temp lead-free solder.
>>
>Stew replied:
>>As I said, I haven't used lead-free solder.
>>
>>
>
>You say " lead-free solers became fashionable" in a previous post to which I
>asked the above.
>
>I seriously doubt the "fashionable" claim. The only half viable lead-free is
>96/4 tin silver which I doubt anyone uses for audio purposes.
By fashionable, I was referring to the fact that the 'greenies' have
pushed for the removal of lead from virtually any commercial product,
pretty well regardless of the real environmental impact.
I think you'll find that there are now several lead-free solder alloys
on the market, especially in the US. Generally, they contain antimony,
which is not to my mind much of an improvement...........
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>Whoops..it was "cold" ... what do both mean?
soldering process.
A "cold" joint is one in which the solder did not bond to all
of the components involved. It's called "cold" because usually it
happens when either the joint was not cleaned well enough, or when
it was not heated sufficiently.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Garthap <gar...@aol.com> wrote:
>In modern societies they stopped "soldering" water pipes etc. decades ago.
cultures control deceptive argumentation, as well, but let's not.
>But what is a fashionable lead-free solder used for audio purposes? Or did my
>browser send me to rec.plumbing.disposer by mistake? )-:
None, I suspect. Didn't say otherwise. You seem to be into making
unqualified generalities, and then griping when they are limited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Stewart Pinkerton <a...@borealis.com > wrote:
>It's flat-out WRONG, that's what's inaccurate about it! Didn't you
>even READ my post? As I said before, a 36/62/2 lead/tin/silver alloy
>*lowers* the melting point to an exact 179 degrees from the standard
>60/40 slush range of 183-234 degrees. It's the eutectic alloy of these
>three elements.
Gosh, Stewart, you're going to confuse him. Perhaps now you'll have
to define "eutectic" and then explain 'solid solution' and energy
potentials inside a pseudocrystal. :-)
Garthap
>It's flat-out WRONG, that's what's inaccurate about it! Didn't you
>even READ my post? As I said before, a 36/62/2 lead/tin/silver alloy
>*lowers* the melting point to an exact 179 degrees from the standard
>60/40 slush range of 183-234 degrees. It's the eutectic alloy of these
>three elements.
>
>
Hi Stew!
Some probably didn´t get the "eutectic" twist. You´d think they would at least
grab a dictionary first before inserting foot.
BTW the data you gave on the mixtures and melting points is according to three
different manufacturers data sheets I have within 0 degrees of being 100%
correct! Spot on!
Garth
Stewart Pinkerton
>JJ wrote:
>
>>There are antimony-based soldiers used in plumbing in the US now.
>
>In modern societies they stopped "soldering" water pipes etc. decades ago.
Oh really? You have a problem with copper water pipes?
Stewart Pinkerton
Well, it's not exactly rocket science, since eutectic alloys are like
immortals - there can be only one!
Stewart Pinkerton
>
>
>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message <36658134...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>
>>By fashionable, I was referring to the fact that the 'greenies' have
>>pushed for the removal of lead from virtually any commercial product,
>>pretty well regardless of the real environmental impact.
>
>**Before I suffered the effects of lead poisoning and the arguably worse
>effects of it's removal (by EDTA tharapy), I could care less about lead and
>it's affect on the environment. I do now. I am just sorry for my ignorance
>about the issue in the past. Lead is a very insidious poison and the sooner
>it is removed from the environment, the better. This is the reason why I
>tried lead free solder. As it happens, that was probably an over-reaction,
>since the lead was likely to have been atmospheric dust and particulates
>from vehicle exhuasts. EDTA therapy involves about 3 hours connected to an
>IV drip once per week for about 20 weeks. For someone who fears needles,
>this was not a pleasant experience. Not only that, but the therapy 'knocks
>the stuffing' out of one.
>
>>I think you'll find that there are now several lead-free solder alloys
>>on the market, especially in the US. Generally, they contain antimony,
>>which is not to my mind much of an improvement...........
>
>**My ignorance about antimony is about the same as my ignorance of lead, ten
>years ago. I am reasonably certain that the lead free solder I tried
>contains no antimony. At least it is not listed on the label, anyway.
>
>**Moral: Sometimes it is worth listening to the 'greenies'. Had I done so, I
>may have saved myself considerable inconvenience and cost.
While your experience is unfortunate, and lead is indeed not to be
ingested over long periods, 'greenies' have a less than wonderful
reputation in this country, especially in their more risible
incarnations driving Citroen 2CVs and using wood-burning stoves - each
perceived as 'green', but in reality quite horrible polluters.
A fire-breathing 250 BHP Honda Accord VTEC-R produces significantly
less pollution than a flea-power 2CV, and a medium-sized village
running on wood-burning stoves ejects more radioactive waste into the
atmosphere than your average nuclear power station.........
Stewart Pinkerton
>In article <36657f96...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
>Stewart Pinkerton <a...@borealis.com > wrote:
>>It's flat-out WRONG, that's what's inaccurate about it! Didn't you
>>even READ my post? As I said before, a 36/62/2 lead/tin/silver alloy
>>*lowers* the melting point to an exact 179 degrees from the standard
>>60/40 slush range of 183-234 degrees. It's the eutectic alloy of these
>>three elements.
>
>Gosh, Stewart, you're going to confuse him. Perhaps now you'll have
>to define "eutectic" and then explain 'solid solution' and energy
>potentials inside a pseudocrystal. :-)
If he's going to argue about the melting points of various alloys, I
would naturally do him the honour of assuming that he was aware of the
meaning of eutectic. OTOH, you may be right..... :-(
George M. Middius
>>In modern societies they stopped "soldering" water pipes etc. decades ago.
>Oh really? You have a problem with copper water pipes?
The typical problem with them is that they cost more than
iron or plastic. Next.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
Gruvmyster
> Stewart Pinkerton said:
> >Oh really? You have a problem with copper water pipes?
> The typical problem with them is that they cost more than
> iron or plastic. Next.
I'm stunned. Not only is Ben Mid Yut an expert on all matters human, he's also an
expert on all matters plumbing.
Is there no end to this being's talent?
Doug
--
"People feel more ill will toward their own
for betraying them than they do toward the
enemy for killing them."-- Jean-Francois Steiner
Trevor Wilson
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message <36658134...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>By fashionable, I was referring to the fact that the 'greenies' have
>pushed for the removal of lead from virtually any commercial product,
>pretty well regardless of the real environmental impact.
**Before I suffered the effects of lead poisoning and the arguably worse
effects of it's removal (by EDTA tharapy), I could care less about lead and
it's affect on the environment. I do now. I am just sorry for my ignorance
about the issue in the past. Lead is a very insidious poison and the sooner
it is removed from the environment, the better. This is the reason why I
tried lead free solder. As it happens, that was probably an over-reaction,
since the lead was likely to have been atmospheric dust and particulates
from vehicle exhuasts. EDTA therapy involves about 3 hours connected to an
IV drip once per week for about 20 weeks. For someone who fears needles,
this was not a pleasant experience. Not only that, but the therapy 'knocks
the stuffing' out of one.
>
>I think you'll find that there are now several lead-free solder alloys
>on the market, especially in the US. Generally, they contain antimony,
>which is not to my mind much of an improvement...........
**My ignorance about antimony is about the same as my ignorance of lead, ten
years ago. I am reasonably certain that the lead free solder I tried
contains no antimony. At least it is not listed on the label, anyway.
**Moral: Sometimes it is worth listening to the 'greenies'. Had I done so, I
may have saved myself considerable inconvenience and cost.
Cheers,
Trevor Wilson
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rage
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton said:
>
>>>In modern societies they stopped "soldering" water pipes etc. decades ago.
>
>>Oh really? You have a problem with copper water pipes?
>
>The typical problem with them is that they cost more than
>iron or plastic. Next.
Yes, but they sound so much better than iron pipes. Next.
Doug Stabler
individual crystals aligned in a random pattern emulating the Golden Mean.
George M. Middius
>> >>Oh really? You have a problem with copper water pipes?
>> >The typical problem with them is that they cost more than
>> >iron or plastic. Next.
>> Yes, but they sound so much better than iron pipes. Next.
>Even more so if the copper pipes utilize oxygen free copper, with the
>individual crystals aligned in a random pattern emulating the Golden Mean.
You mean the Golden Flush, I presume.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Stewart Pinkerton <a...@borealis.com > wrote:
>A fire-breathing 250 BHP Honda Accord VTEC-R produces significantly
>less pollution than a flea-power 2CV, and a medium-sized village
>running on wood-burning stoves ejects more radioactive waste into the
>atmosphere than your average nuclear power station.........
And that's not even talking about an average coal-fired electrical
plant. The radioactivity coming from one of them easily trounces
TMI by orders of magnitude.
flac...@my-dejanews.com
j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
> In article <743tts$49$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <flac...@my-dejanews.com>
wrote:
> >Whoops..it was "cold" ... what do both mean?
> A "dry" joint is one that did not get solder into it during the
> soldering process.
>
> A "cold" joint is one in which the solder did not bond to all
> of the components involved. It's called "cold" because usually it
> happens when either the joint was not cleaned well enough, or when
> it was not heated sufficiently.
I opened the monitor...the connections were good, a couple of pots needed
adjusting. Thanks.
Paragon
> It's flat-out WRONG, that's what's inaccurate about it! Didn't you
> even READ my post? As I said before, a 36/62/2 lead/tin/silver alloy
> *lowers* the melting point to an exact 179 degrees from the standard
> 60/40 slush range of 183-234 degrees. It's the eutectic alloy of these
> three elements.
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
36/62/2 Pb/Sn/Ag VS. 60/40 Pb/Sn is apples to oranges comparsion.
According to your post, in Wonder solder the Pb/Sn weight ratios are
effectively swapped. The melt point goes down NOT because the Ag is
present but because the Sn wt. % has increased two-fold.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> It's flat-out WRONG, that's what's inaccurate about it! Didn't you
>> even READ my post? As I said before, a 36/62/2 lead/tin/silver alloy
>> *lowers* the melting point to an exact 179 degrees from the standard
>> 60/40 slush range of 183-234 degrees. It's the eutectic alloy of these
>> three elements.
>
>36/62/2 Pb/Sn/Ag VS. 60/40 Pb/Sn is apples to oranges comparsion.
>According to your post, in Wonder solder the Pb/Sn weight ratios are
>effectively swapped. The melt point goes down NOT because the Ag is
>present but because the Sn wt. % has increased two-fold.
The melt point goes down because it is the *eutectic* alloy of those
three metals. Since you seem to be unable to understand this simple
principle, there's no point in discussing the matter any further. You
are also simply trying to defend two flat-out wrong statements, since
you said that the addition of silver to *any* tin-lead alloy would
*increase* the melt point. This is simply not true. Further, your
implication regarding tin content is wrong, because tin itself has a
melting point of 232 degrees, considerably above that of the eutectic
alloy at 179. Hence, adding more tin will *raise* the melting point.
The nearest two-part solder alloy in standard use is 60/40 tin/lead,
which also has a higher melt range of 183-188 degrees.
Garthap
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>> It's flat-out WRONG, that's what's inaccurate about it! Didn't you
>>> even READ my post? As I said before, a 36/62/2 lead/tin/silver alloy
>>> *lowers* the melting point to an exact 179 degrees from the standard
>>> 60/40 slush range of 183-234 degrees. It's the eutectic alloy of these
>>> three elements.
>>
>>36/62/2 Pb/Sn/Ag VS. 60/40 Pb/Sn is apples to oranges comparsion.
>>According to your post, in Wonder solder the Pb/Sn weight ratios are
>>effectively swapped. The melt point goes down NOT because the Ag is
>>present but because the Sn wt. % has increased two-fold.
>
Stewart wrote 36/62/2 lead/tin/silver NOT tin/lead/silver. Although normally
quoted as 62/36/2 or 60/40, i.e. tin then lead he is perfectly correct.
I don´t recall him saying the weight ratios in Wonder solder were swapped. I
think you misread the reversal of the order of the numbers.
Also for instance 60/38/2 lead/tin/copper solder melts at 183 C also higher
than the eutectic mixture of lead/tin/silver. 5/93.5/1.5 tin/lead/silver which
contains far less tin than the above and less silver has a melting point of
296C!
Your statment " The melt point goes down NOT because the Ag is
present but because the Sn wt. % has increased two-fold" is ismply not true.
Garth
Paragon
>
> The melt point goes down because it is the *eutectic* alloy of those
> three metals. Since you seem to be unable to understand this simple
> principle, there's no point in discussing the matter any further. You
> are also simply trying to defend two flat-out wrong statements, since
> you said that the addition of silver to *any* tin-lead alloy would
> *increase* the melt point. This is simply not true. Further, your
> implication regarding tin content is wrong, because tin itself has a
> melting point of 232 degrees, considerably above that of the eutectic
> alloy at 179. Hence, adding more tin will *raise* the melting point.
> The nearest two-part solder alloy in standard use is 60/40 tin/lead,
> which also has a higher melt range of 183-188 degrees.
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Then explain these Unitified Nataional Standards for Sn-Pb solder
systems:
UNS13630 63 Sn 37 Pb Solidus = Melt point 361F (binary eutectic) Slush
zone 0F
UNS55133 62 Sn 36 Pb 2Ag Solidus 354F, Melt point 372F (Wonder Solder)
Slush zone 18F
The Wonder solder composition has a HIGHER melt point than the binary
eutectic alloy AND it is NOT a eutectic. The numbers manufacturers
quote always refer to the onset of slush, which for Wonder Solder IS
lower than the binary eutectic HOWEVER the liquidus of Wonder Solder IS
higher which means that the tertiary is NOT a eutectic AND added silver
increases the liquidus temperature as I stated earlier.
BTW, for electronic applications, silver is added PRIMARILY to the
Sn-rich system to reduce the dissolution of silver from silver alloy
coatings NOT to increase strength as has been speculated by others.
Silver does increase strength and creep but that is SECONDARY.
I do not know what brand of Wonder Solder you are looking at but
according to my UNS catalog the one mention above is the ONLY
composition that is listed containing 2% Ag.
Ref: Metals Handbook, ASM, Ch.12, pp 3-4 (1985)
Paragon
Paragon
> Your statment " The melt point goes down NOT because the Ag is
> present but because the Sn wt. % has increased two-fold" is ismply not true.
>
> Garth
The binary eutectic for Sn Pb system is;
UNS13630 63Sn 37Pb, Solidus = Meltpoint = 361F
"Wonder Solder" conforms to:
UNS55133 62Sn 36Pb 2Ag, Solidus = 354F, Meltpoint = 372F, Slush zone =
18F
The onset of slush for WS is LOWER than the eutectic BUT the Liquidus is
higher which means 1.) the tertiary is not a eutectic composition AND
2.) the melt point is increased by silver additions. Pinkerton
inititally compared 60Pb 40Sn to WS which has a much greater fractioin
of Sn in its composition 50% more. Hence the Melt point of WS will go
down because of the greater wt. % of Sn in it compared to 60Pb 40Sn.
Based on the UNS data the "substitution" of 2 wt% Ag for Pb in the Sn-Pb
eutectic surpresses the solidus below the meltpoint of the binary
eutectic BUT increases the liquidus 18F above it HENCE indicating a
solid-liquid transition phase (I.E. NO EUTECTIC BUDDY!!!!).
My inititial statement still holds. The addition of Ag to this system
increases the melt point.
Garthap
>"Wonder Solder" conforms to:
>
>UNS55133 62Sn 36Pb 2Ag, Solidus = 354F, Meltpoint = 372F, Slush zone =
>18F
>
>
That´s exactly what we said all along. WS is nothing more than a wholly normal
industrial solder. Many manufacturers make the above.
As far as I understand what the practical meaning of eutectic is the above
mixture of those three metals is the lowest melting point possible for any
combination of the three. Chane the percentage in any way and the melting point
goes up.
Garth
Garthap
>Then explain these Unitified Nataional Standards for Sn-Pb solder
>systems:
>
>UNS13630 63 Sn 37 Pb Solidus = Melt point 361F (binary eutectic) Slush
>zone 0F
>UNS55133 62 Sn 36 Pb 2Ag Solidus 354F, Melt point 372F (Wonder Solder)
>Slush zone 18F
>
>The Wonder solder composition has a HIGHER melt point than the binary
>eutectic alloy AND it is NOT a eutectic. The numbers manufacturers
>quote always refer to the onset of slush, which for Wonder Solder IS
>lower than the binary eutectic HOWEVER the liquidus of Wonder Solder IS
>higher which means that the tertiary is NOT a eutectic AND added silver
>increases the liquidus temperature as I stated earlier.
62/36/2 IS the eutectic for Sn/Pb/Ag. If not what is?
Perhaps solder manufacturers quote the temp at the fully liquid state but in
either case we´re taling about a difference of 4C. But reading the specs the
62/36/2 composition has a lower melting point than 60/40. I use both and there
virtually no difference in normal use. The former does give a nicer looking
finish however.
The only other differences between various 62/36/2 solders is the flux. Some
are more active than others, some are biodegradable, others halogen free. Some
leave more junk to clean up others less etc. Some will allow various metals
like brass to be soldered more easily.
There is no wonder here.
Garth
Stewart Pinkerton
> Paragon <tzm...@execpc.com> says:
>>"Wonder Solder" conforms to:
>>
>>UNS55133 62Sn 36Pb 2Ag, Solidus = 354F, Meltpoint = 372F, Slush zone =
>>18F
>
>That愀 exactly what we said all along. WS is nothing more than a wholly normal
>industrial solder. Many manufacturers make the above.
>
>As far as I understand what the practical meaning of eutectic is the above
>mixture of those three metals is the lowest melting point possible for any
>combination of the three. Chane the percentage in any way and the melting point
>goes up.
Correct, and the information given above by 'Paragon' is simply
incorrect. 62/36/2 *is* the trinary eutectic alloy, and the melt point
is 354F with no 'slush zone'. It is of course a widely available
standard industrial solder, usually sold as 'LMP' (low melting point)
solder, and there's no excuse for 'Wonder Solder' being priced any
differently than the same alloy purchased from Parts Connection or
Farnell/Newark.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Then explain these Unitified Nataional Standards for Sn-Pb solder
>systems:
>
>UNS13630 63 Sn 37 Pb Solidus = Melt point 361F (binary eutectic) Slush
>zone 0F
>UNS55133 62 Sn 36 Pb 2Ag Solidus 354F, Melt point 372F (Wonder Solder)
>Slush zone 18F
Simple, the data you give for 62/36/2 is *wrong*. This *is* the
eutectic tri-metal alloy and it has solidus=liquidus=179C=354F. You
need to get a better data book, buddy!
The eutectic point for the tri-metal alloy is lower than that of the
bi-metal alloy without the silver, so once again, you are *wrong*.
As a clue to how the misprint occurred, consider that the true
solidus/liquidus figures for the industry standard 60Sn/40Pb solder
alloy are 361F/372F.
>The Wonder solder composition has a HIGHER melt point than the binary
>eutectic alloy AND it is NOT a eutectic.
It *is* the eutectic alloy, your information is wrong. If you don't
believe me, check the brochure of any supplier of industrial solders,
or indeed any general purpose electronic parts supplier such as
Farnell/Newark.
>The numbers manufacturers
>quote always refer to the onset of slush, which for Wonder Solder IS
>lower than the binary eutectic HOWEVER the liquidus of Wonder Solder IS
>higher which means that the tertiary is NOT a eutectic AND added silver
>increases the liquidus temperature as I stated earlier.
Sorry, your data is simply incorrect.
>BTW, for electronic applications, silver is added PRIMARILY to the
>Sn-rich system to reduce the dissolution of silver from silver alloy
>coatings NOT to increase strength as has been speculated by others.
>Silver does increase strength and creep but that is SECONDARY.
It also prevents leaching of the gold plating which is commonly used
to maintain the solderability of high quality industrial/military
electronic components. As you say, it's not there to make the joint
stronger, simply to prevent leaching of noble metals and the
subsequent crystallisation and embrittlement of the joint. It does
also avoid embrittlement at low temperatures, which can be significant
in aviation and military applications.
>I do not know what brand of Wonder Solder you are looking at but
>according to my UNS catalog the one mention above is the ONLY
>composition that is listed containing 2% Ag.
>
>Ref: Metals Handbook, ASM, Ch.12, pp 3-4 (1985)
Get a new book, that one contains a misprint........
62SN/36Pb/2Ag *is* the trinary eutectic alloy, and has the lowest melt
point of *any* dominantly tin/lead solder alloy.
Paragon
>
> Paragon <tzm...@execpc.com> says:
> >"Wonder Solder" conforms to:
> >
> >UNS55133 62Sn 36Pb 2Ag, Solidus = 354F, Meltpoint = 372F, Slush zone =
> >18F
> >
> >
>
> That愀 exactly what we said all along. WS is nothing more than a wholly normal
> industrial solder. Many manufacturers make the above.
>
> As far as I understand what the practical meaning of eutectic is the above
> mixture of those three metals is the lowest melting point possible for any
> combination of the three. Chane the percentage in any way and the melting point
> goes up.
>
A eutectic has no slushy zone, it melts at a well defined temp.
Pinkerton states that the WS IS a eutectic with a melt temp LOWER than
the eutectic which is incorrect.
The point is that the actual melt point of WS IS higher than the binary
eutectic
melt temp. The silver addition causes a depression in the solidus and
an increase in the liquidus. That is what I meant by the doping of
silver increases the MP. For WS, the "slushy" zone (just crossing the
solidus) starts at a LOWER temp than the binary eutectic (Pinkerton
qoutes 179C) which is correct BUT it is completely liquid (the true
melting temp) at a temp HIGHER than the binary eutectic. Since the MP
is not isothermal it cannot be considered a eutectic.
Paragon
Paragon
>
>
> 62/36/2 IS the eutectic for Sn/Pb/Ag. If not what is?
>
a solid phase(s) and a liquid phase co-exist at one temperature which is
exactly what a eutectic is NOT. On cooling from the liquid (or heating
from the solid) the transformation from solid to liquid (or liquid to
solid upon cooling) occurs without a slushy reaction. It freezes or
melts "quasi-instantly". You need a tertiary phase diagram to determine
what happens to tertiary alloys upon heating and cooling. For this
system, I do not have one handy. They are difficult to interpret also.
The fact that the UNS standard quotes a solidus and liquid temp for the
WS composition is enough to tell me that WS is NOT eutectic as per SP
and others on this thread seem to believe.
>Perhaps solder manufacturers quote the temp at the fully liquid state but in
> either case we´re taling about a difference of 4C. But reading the specs the
> 62/36/2 composition has a lower melting point than 60/40.
You are correct in your practical observations, the differences are
minute. I think that lower melt point is the onset of "slushy" (i.e. the
solidus) because when it gets slushy the kinetics, especially the
entropy of mixing, kicks in and the reaction goes fast. That's the
practical implication of crossing the solidus. Also, impurities have
effects that usually depress the solidus. Some manufacturers cite the
"pasty" temperature range.
> I use both and there
> virtually no difference in normal use. The former does give a nicer looking
> finish however.
It's good solder. You shouldn't see much of a difference because both
have slushy zones and neither is a eutectic. But I would not recommend
it to anyone as being "necessary" unless they were soldering silver
plated contacts and expected them to last for 20 years.
Paragon
ddr
I have purchased the following:
ANSI-J-STD-006 Whatever that means...
Alloy SN95AG05
DIA..031
Core 66
Flux "44"
I was told that this is 5% silver and 95% tin. Lead Free. So, it would be
good?
Thanks! Loren
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message <3668fa81...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>Paragon <tzm...@execpc.com> writes:
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>> It's flat-out WRONG, that's what's inaccurate about it! Didn't you
>>> even READ my post? As I said before, a 36/62/2 lead/tin/silver alloy
>>> *lowers* the melting point to an exact 179 degrees from the standard
>>> 60/40 slush range of 183-234 degrees. It's the eutectic alloy of these
>>> three elements.
>>
>>36/62/2 Pb/Sn/Ag VS. 60/40 Pb/Sn is apples to oranges comparsion.
>>According to your post, in Wonder solder the Pb/Sn weight ratios are
>>effectively swapped. The melt point goes down NOT because the Ag is
>>present but because the Sn wt. % has increased two-fold.
>
>The melt point goes down because it is the *eutectic* alloy of those
>three metals. Since you seem to be unable to understand this simple
>principle, there's no point in discussing the matter any further. You
>are also simply trying to defend two flat-out wrong statements, since
>you said that the addition of silver to *any* tin-lead alloy would
>*increase* the melt point. This is simply not true. Further, your
>implication regarding tin content is wrong, because tin itself has a
>melting point of 232 degrees, considerably above that of the eutectic
>alloy at 179. Hence, adding more tin will *raise* the melting point.
>The nearest two-part solder alloy in standard use is 60/40 tin/lead,
>which also has a higher melt range of 183-188 degrees.
>
Stewart Pinkerton
>I have purchased the following:
>
>ANSI-J-STD-006 Whatever that means...
>
>Alloy SN95AG05
>
>DIA..031
>
>Core 66
>
>Flux "44"
>
>I was told that this is 5% silver and 95% tin. Lead Free. So, it would be
>good?
It depends what you want it to do! :-)
If you want to avoid lead, then it's a good product. If you want it to
make the best possible solder joint, then it's not as good as 36/62/2
lead/tin/silver.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Garthap wrote:
>>
>> Paragon <tzm...@execpc.com> says:
>> >"Wonder Solder" conforms to:
>> >
>> >UNS55133 62Sn 36Pb 2Ag, Solidus = 354F, Meltpoint = 372F, Slush zone =
>> >18F
>> >
>> >
>>
>> That´s exactly what we said all along. WS is nothing more than a wholly normal
>> industrial solder. Many manufacturers make the above.
>>
>> As far as I understand what the practical meaning of eutectic is the above
>> mixture of those three metals is the lowest melting point possible for any
>> combination of the three. Chane the percentage in any way and the melting point
>> goes up.
>>
>> Garth
>
>A eutectic has no slushy zone, it melts at a well defined temp.
>Pinkerton states that the WS IS a eutectic with a melt temp LOWER than
>the eutectic which is incorrect.
>The point is that the actual melt point of WS IS higher than the binary
>eutectic
>melt temp. The silver addition causes a depression in the solidus and
>an increase in the liquidus. That is what I meant by the doping of
>silver increases the MP. For WS, the "slushy" zone (just crossing the
>solidus) starts at a LOWER temp than the binary eutectic (Pinkerton
>qoutes 179C) which is correct BUT it is completely liquid (the true
>melting temp) at a temp HIGHER than the binary eutectic. Since the MP
>is not isothermal it cannot be considered a eutectic.
As I said before, your data book has a misprint. 'Wonder Solder' *is*
the trinary eutectic alloy, and it *does* have a single melt point of
179C/354F, which is lower than the binary tin/lead eutectic point of
183C/361F. Live with it..................
Stewart Pinkerton
>Garthap wrote:
>>
>>
>> 62/36/2 IS the eutectic for Sn/Pb/Ag. If not what is?
>>
>How can a eutectic composition have a slushy zone?? A slushy zone means
>a solid phase(s) and a liquid phase co-exist at one temperature which is
>exactly what a eutectic is NOT. On cooling from the liquid (or heating
>from the solid) the transformation from solid to liquid (or liquid to
>solid upon cooling) occurs without a slushy reaction. It freezes or
>melts "quasi-instantly". You need a tertiary phase diagram to determine
>what happens to tertiary alloys upon heating and cooling. For this
>system, I do not have one handy. They are difficult to interpret also.
>The fact that the UNS standard quotes a solidus and liquid temp for the
>WS composition is enough to tell me that WS is NOT eutectic as per SP
>and others on this thread seem to believe.
It's not a 'belief', your book has a misprint.
>>Perhaps solder manufacturers quote the temp at the fully liquid state but in
>> either case we´re taling about a difference of 4C. But reading the specs the
>> 62/36/2 composition has a lower melting point than 60/40.
>
>You are correct in your practical observations, the differences are
>minute. I think that lower melt point is the onset of "slushy" (i.e. the
>solidus) because when it gets slushy the kinetics, especially the
>entropy of mixing, kicks in and the reaction goes fast. That's the
>practical implication of crossing the solidus. Also, impurities have
>effects that usually depress the solidus. Some manufacturers cite the
>"pasty" temperature range.
>> I use both and there
>> virtually no difference in normal use. The former does give a nicer looking
>> finish however.
>
>It's good solder. You shouldn't see much of a difference because both
>have slushy zones and neither is a eutectic.
Sigh..... 62SN/36Pb/2Ag *is* the eutectic alloy, whatever your
precious book says.
> But I would not recommend
>it to anyone as being "necessary" unless they were soldering silver
>plated contacts and expected them to last for 20 years.
It also resists embrittlement at low temperatures, which can be a
significant advantage in many applications.
Garthap
>So, I have read the thread.
>
>I have purchased the following:
>
>ANSI-J-STD-006 Whatever that means...
>
>Alloy SN95AG05
>
>DIA..031
>
>Core 66
>
>Flux "44"
>
>I was told that this is 5% silver and 95% tin. Lead Free. So, it would be
>good?
The question is good for what?
For use in typical audio applications like repairs, terminating cables etc.
etc. I would say definately NOT.
It is lead free but unfortunatly has a very high melting point which is going
to make using it difficult and frustrating. You can also melt or distort the
dielectrics in various connectors due to the long expose to the very high temp.
needed. It also tends to "promote" poor solder joints.
If you can´t find 62/36/2 tin/lead/silver just use 60/40 tin lead.
Garth
Garthap
>The fact that the UNS standard quotes a solidus and liquid temp for the
>WS composition is enough to tell me that WS is NOT eutectic as per SP
>and others on this thread seem to believe.
My manufacturer does not quote a slushy zone but simply a melt temp of 179C.
Period.
I don´t think Stewart said WS IS necessarily this or that.
But 62/36/2 IS the eutectic mixture for these three alloys.
What does your book say is the eutectic?
Although not necessary the 62/36/2 solder is slightly easier to use than 60/40
but the flux type makes perhaps a bigger difference.
Garth
Garthap
>A eutectic has no slushy zone, it melts at a well defined temp.
>Pinkerton states that the WS IS a eutectic with a melt temp LOWER than
>the eutectic which is incorrect.
>The point is that the actual melt point of WS IS higher than the binary
>eutectic
>melt temp. The silver addition causes a depression in the solidus and
>an increase in the liquidus. That is what I meant by the doping of
>silver increases the MP. For WS, the "slushy" zone (just crossing the
>solidus) starts at a LOWER temp than the binary eutectic (Pinkerton
>qoutes 179C) which is correct BUT it is completely liquid (the true
>melting temp) at a temp HIGHER than the binary eutectic. Since the MP
>is not isothermal it cannot be considered a eutectic.
I don´t recall Stweart EVER saying WS melts at a LOWER temp. than the eutectic
of tin/lead/silver. But if it did it must have something else in it.
What Stweatrr and I are claiming is that WS is "most likely" an eutectic
tin/lead/silver solder very similar or identical to most industrialy available
solders of the same eutectic mixture.
Maybe WS is slushy. Just another good reason to simply buy an industrial "LMP"
solder which IS eutectic and is not slushy.
Garth