Printed Circuit Board Assembly & PCB Design Forum

SMT electronics assembly manufacturing forum.

SMTnet
»
Electronics Forum
»
SACX vs. SN100C

SACX vs. SN100C

Subscribe to Thread

guys pls. comment which is better based on actual experien... - Jul 06, 2006 by

Hi, That would be interesting. We are running SN100C and ... - Jul 06, 2006 by Grant

I am also getting ready to order solder for my new wave. Bas... - Jul 17, 2006 by Paul

Hi Paul, not to throw a wrench in here but I beleive that pa... - Jul 17, 2006 by RDR

Hi all, We are running with SACX in our Wave. To be ho... - Jul 17, 2006 by

Any comments as to how corrosive it is to a solder pot, rela... - Jul 17, 2006 by Steve Thomas

Thanks Russ, I actually knew that but for some reason my bra... - Jul 17, 2006 by Paul

The supplier Alpha said that there should be no signs of cor... - Jul 17, 2006 by

280 is pretty hot dont you think have you tried the allo... - Jul 19, 2006 by

We have SnCuCo (Cobalt 995) solder from MRI in our solder po... - Jul 19, 2006 by

kris, Thats what I said when the rep. advised me. But I ... - Jul 19, 2006 by

Dave, I dont know if you run SMD solderside through your ... - Jul 20, 2006 by

and also that most connector/PTH component vendors test thei... - Jul 21, 2006 by

Vad

#42589

SACX vs. SN100C | 6 July, 2006

guys pls. comment which is better based on actual experience and not on the selling side of it..thanks a lot..people... one of my supplier said SACX is better but I need proof...living....he claim belo: 1. Better hole fill 2. Higher wetting force 3. Better resistance to thermal cycle cracking 4. Better yield ie less p.p.m faults any expert pls.. comment...

reply »

Grant

#42592

SACX vs. SN100C | 6 July, 2006

Hi,

That would be interesting. We are running SN100C and it's as good lead wave solder from our experience, and some people have competed on it here on the forum, but no one has reported they are using SACX yet, so it would be good to know anyones experiences with it.

Grant

reply »

Paul

#42737

SACX vs. SN100C | 17 July, 2006

I am also getting ready to order solder for my new wave. Based on what I have read (here and other places) people prefer Sn100c for the wave. I have yet to hear of someone using Sn100c and switching to SACx. I am using SAC305 for reflow and I am trying to decide between Sn100C and Cobalt995 (metallic resources) for my wave solder. Does anyone have any knowledge/experience with Cobalt995 ? http://www.metallicresources.com/pb_lf/LeadFreeWave-Colbalt995.pdf

This post has been edited to correct my lack of brain function when originally typed.

reply »

RDR

#42739

SACX vs. SN100C | 17 July, 2006

Hi Paul, not to throw a wrench in here but I beleive that paople are talking about switching from SAC in wave to SN100C, NOT SACx, these are different. and should not be confused. SACx is supposed to fall somewhere in the middle of the SN100C and the SAC305 for wave soldering. You may know this but I wanted to be sure.

I also would like to hear input from anybody trying or using this SACx.

Russ

reply »

#42740

SACX vs. SN100C | 17 July, 2006

Hi all,

We are running with SACX in our Wave.

To be honest it was like a drop in replacemnt and we have seen some boards improve believe it or not.

we find that running it at an elevated temp. i.e 280 on our selective pallets improves wetting and allows for better hole fill.

We are running it approx: 2mths now with no issues. Also we did not coat or replace any internal components so we will have to keep monitoring how it goes.

aj...

reply »

Steve Thomas

#42741

SACX vs. SN100C | 17 July, 2006

Any comments as to how corrosive it is to a solder pot, relative to SN100C?

reply »

Paul

#42742

SACX vs. SN100C | 17 July, 2006

Thanks Russ, I actually knew that but for some reason my brain got hung up on the 305...lol.

reply »

#42752

SACX vs. SN100C | 17 July, 2006

The supplier Alpha said that there should be no signs of corrosion within the first 18-24 mths. We have increased Maintenance on the Pot and Nozzles etc. everything checking out fine so far( 2 mths) We also get a pot anlaysis every two weeks.

aj...

reply »

kris

#42800

SACX vs. SN100C | 19 July, 2006

280 is pretty hot dont you think

have you tried the alloy at 260-265 where SAC 305 works ?

Thx

reply »

cuculi54986@yahoo.com

#42809

SACX vs. SN100C | 19 July, 2006

We have SnCuCo (Cobalt 995) solder from MRI in our solder pot. I'm not the wave master here, but I believe our wave master is pretty satisfied with it.

Send an email to cuculi54986@yahoo.com, and I'll forward your email address from there to him. I'm sure he'll be happy to talk to you about it.

reply »

dave

#42810

SACX vs. SN100C | 19 July, 2006

kris,

Thats what I said when the rep. advised me. But I had called him in to advise me on some problems I was seeing on a certain boards. When we ran at this elevated Temperature "bingo" the results were perfect. So as you know yourself wrt wave process ,if it works it works.

If you think of the temp. in relation to the old tin/lead alloy. i.e tin/lead eutectic 183degrees and we ran the pot at 250 ( giving 67 degrees increase) its not that different!

Maybe some other users can let us know how they find it.

dave

reply »

Loco

#42818

SACX vs. SN100C | 20 July, 2006

Dave,

I dont know if you run SMD solderside through your wave, but if you do, consider that most SMD is specified to 260 degrees. 280 would be way over.

reply »

kris

#42888

SACX vs. SN100C | 21 July, 2006