Talk:Soldering

I removed the How-to section by User:216.138.194.68, since it was very long, concerned mostly/only with pipe soldering. If the user wishes to write a how-to (a good thing in itself!), I've suggested (on that user's talk page) that it should be in a Wikipedia:How-to article oa a Wikibook. --Janke | Talk 10:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction doesn't make any sense

When soldering copper, brass, nickel, silver, etc. the solder joint is stronger, not weaker, than the surrounding metal. Also I'm not sure the term wetting applies to how the solder comingles with the metal at the joint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.169.1 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

We might want to add a note about this: in the UK it tends to be soul-dering, whereas in the US it's sodder-ing, with a silent L. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know why that is? I've always said solder, but everybody else here says sodder. 205.174.22.28 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the confusion, I often hear it said (in NE USA) as if it were spelled saudering, or even sauldering. To keep myself honest, I just rotate between all the pronunciations. human 23:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete technologies

The electronics section seems to be talking about through-hole components. There's nothing wrong with that, but we should point out that that's a (very) old technology....surface mount is completely dominant these days.

-- Surface mount is popular, however electronic technicians will frequently encounter through-hole, as hand soldering is an essential skill in the trade, its highly relevant. 124.149.50.202 (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

solder melting temp error?

I think the melting temp of solder is below 450 F (not C as in the article). Comments?? This would be aout 232 C.Nicolem23 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think celsius degrees are OK. Although 200°C is around the melting point of most of the solders used in electronics, other solders exist with a much higher melting point. CyrilB 16:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60-40 Tin-lead solder has a melting temperature around 370 degrees F. What the article says is that any alloy that melts below 450 C is considered a solder, higher melting-point alloys are considered brazes. 60-40 Tin-lead certainly qualifies as a solder, melting at 370 F. Might not be a bad idea to clear that up if you'd like. Middlenamefrank 18:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solder as a filler?

This article talks about solder as a filler, but in silver soldering there is never ANY gap between the two pieces to be joined - in fact any gap between the two will usually mean that the join will not be very good. I was once told that if I could see light through the gap between the two pieces, then the join was not tight enough.

Another issue is the silver content of silver solder. This article lists the silver content cutoff point at 40%, but I know for a fact that you can get it up to 76% silver content, and sometimes higher for specialist applications such as jewelery (I've known some jewelers to use pure silver as if it were solder, but that's a different kettle of fish).

Just wanted to know what people's views were on this. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an EE, so my real-life experience is from an entirely different professional position, but it looks to me like we're on the same page here. As the article says, the (rather arbitrary) cutoff point between 'soldering' and 'brazing' is 450 °C (842 °F). I see from the silver page that the melting temp of pure silver is 961.78 °C, or 1763.2 °F. That places it way beyond the 'soldering' threshold. I'm no expert on the formulations, especially given the inclusion of other elements (bismuth?, lithium??), but maybe 40% silver is pretty near to the 450C limit? So anything over 40% silver is TECHNICALLY silver brazing, not solding or 'hard soldering'? It doesn't sound like we're on different pages. A better structural joint (brazing) requires closer setup tolerances.Middlenamefrank 06:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard of "hard soldering" referred to as "brazing", so I'm quite sure that there's a definition between the two that nobody has noticed yet. I can cite sources if need be - I'm pretty sure that 70% silver content solder and above is still considered solder and still has a fairly low melting point in relation to pure silver. Don't forget that it only takes a little bit of tin to reduce the melting point of a metal quite drastically. Even so, I don't quite agree that there is any kind of established cutoff point in temperature or silver content - even if there was an average level I don't see how we could verify such a claim. Metal generally doesn't seem to care about what someone else has decided - it'll still work as a solder whether someone agrees with it or not. :) ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver solder permeates the surrounding metal, much like how wood glue is absorbed by wood. This creates a bond that is actually stronger than the surrounding metal. Brazing is more like superglue, it just sits on the surface and sticks the two pieces together. Brazing is much weaker than soldering, but unlike soldering it can be used to fill gaps. Grauenwolf (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Flux Information

It would be good to add something about "no clean" fluxes. With their wire use it seems appropriate to have information about them here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schneimn (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Look at the middle paragraph in the "flux" section. It says "no-clean" fluxes are available and oftentimes perfectly adequate, but might not give sufficient performance in a poorly-controlled, non-production environment. What else would you like to say about them? Middlenamefrank 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kester web site and other source say cleaning of rosin-based flux residue is optional and only for appearance; that the residue is non-conductive unless the equipment runs hot enough to melt the residue (over 70 C). --Wtshymanski 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought removal of non-activated fluxes (R) was optional, but activated (RA) and mildly-activated (RMA) fluxes required removal. Not true? Middlenamefrank 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a very mild 'no-clean' flux might be perfectly acceptable for production equipment, but not give adequate performance for a poorly-controlled hand-soldering operation."

rosin cored solder usually ued for electronics hand soldering is no-clean, yet is not a problem for hand soldering, even of old parts. It is perhaps inaccurate to describe no-clean as very mild - although certainly far milder than killed spirits. Tabby (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that a large percentage of manufacturers clean "no-clean" fluxes as well as RMA and RA types, mostly to avoid changes in their processes. The R, RMA and RA classifications, as well as the new style (ROL0, ROL1, REM1, etc) provide broad category descriptions for different types of fluxes, but there's a lot of variation between manufacturers, so I don't think you can extract a general cleaning rule from these. For what it's worth, the IPC (general industry and military standard) J-STD-001 Handbook says that ROM1 fluxes (Kester RA "44") do not need to be cleaned for class 1 electronics: consumer electronics that will not cause major loss of money or life if they fail. I think "no-clean" is more of an advertisement than a rule about whether cleaning is truly necessary. In general, you want a flux that is active but won't corrode, and although these two attributes compete, Kester seems to be claiming their "44" flux has achieved both. I sell solder and flux to hobbyists, and spent a lot of time trying to decide what a safe flux would be for non-production projects, and also whether cleaning is necessary. I'd love it if someone could tell me otherwise, but for now my conclusion is that the use of most activated fluxes (at least Kester's RMA and RA)--even without cleaning--will likely not lead to corrosion in non-extreme environments. Manufacturers, of course, are making hundreds of thousands of devices that may need to survive 100 degree F temperature over 10 years in high humidity, and for them to have a very low defect rate, no-clean flux may be the only option. CuriousInventor (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How-to not an encyclopedia article

WP:NOT says under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. A tutorial on how to make a soldered connection is part of a Wikibook, not the Wikipedia. An encyclopediac article must avoid second-person address and should not have the flavor of a how-to guide. --Wtshymanski 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Should we just scrap the 'how-to' sections? If we're going to do that I'd rather move them somewhere and link to them, since I think a fair number of people looking up 'soldering' want to know how to do it. Do you know if there is a wikibook entry somewhere for soldering? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Middlenamefrank (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

how-to sections are generally easily converted to encyclopaedic style content by rephrasing them. Tabby (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to create a wikihow article on www.wikihow.com - it could be even more detailed that way and focus on the how-to aspect. Userafw (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stained Glass

Has anyone noticed that the section on stained glass soldering has absolutely nothing to do with stained glass? 75.5.180.33 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic components (pcbs) Beginnerspeak

A fair bit of beginner speak exists in this section.

"A soldering gun at 100 watts output may provide too much heat for printed circuit boards, while a 23 watt iron will not provide enough heat for joining copper roof flashing or large stained-glass lead came."

In fact 100w guns tend to provide to little heat for pcb work, not too much. The reason is time, a gun only on for 20 seconds doesnt develop the heat of an always-on 25w iron. (This is not the only problem with these guns.)

"For attachment of electronic components to a PCB, proper selection and use of flux is the best way to ensure that all solder pads and device terminals remain clean and oxide-free"

It doesnt do that though, it only helps avoid oxidation during soldering. It doesnt prevent oxidation during soldering, as anyone with soldering experience can testify, nor does it ensure joints are clean. Anyone who has soldered old component leads can testify to that.

"The devices must be mounted on the circuit board properly."

not at all, I've successfully and reliably soldered a huge number of entirely unrestrained joints. Its whats recommended to beginners because it simplifies the process, but its in no way a requirement.

Soldering is a very forgiving process, but components ought not to be solely supported by the solder joint - for example, wire leads should be wrapped around lugs on a tag strip before soldering, so that the component will stay put before the joint is completed; through-hole leads should be clinched to hold the part before soldering, also. Having said this, I have used a touch of solder instead of jumper clips for temporary connections - but you shouldn't find this technique in anything intended to be a reliable product. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is somewhere in between these two. Small parts (almost all PCB mounted parts in fact) don't need any other mechanical means of attachment. Heavier parts may. Middlenamefrank (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally the component should be mechanically stable, so that it doesn't move while cooling and create a 'dry' joint. That's what I learned in 'High Reliability Soldering' courses at the Australian Civil Aviation Authority. The term 'dry joint' isn't mentioned in the article either. I thought it was a common term. Usually the leads (thru hole soldering) were plenty to hold the parts in place, if you bent them properly.

When I talk high reliability, the process took, as I recall up to 20 minutes per joint! It was supposed to be up to military or even Aerospace standards! deburr pad, clean pad, clean lead, bend lead, insert lead, trim lead, clean solder!, trim solder, clean tip, solder joint, inspect joint, clean joint, inspect again!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught to solder to aerospace standards (for an aircraft manufacturer) and it never took anywhere near that long. Yes cleanliness it important but if the board is cleaned before you start it should stay clean until the board is done. Cleaning components and trimming leads doesn't take very long. Dry joints can be caused by a multitude of factors - it doesn't necessarily need to be movement while the joint cools. It could simply be that it was never heated enough to begin with. In my experience this is becoming more common now since people are still using their old "thermally balanced" irons with lead free solder, and they simply don't get hot enough. As a result you see entire boards where every single joint is obviously dry. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"To achieve a properly heated joint, the soldering iron and the solder must be applied separately to the surfaces to be joined, rather than the iron being applied directly to the solder."

No, again its just beginners advice. Again I've soldered huge numbers of joints reliably by applying the solder to the iron. One merely has to then complete the joint before the flux ceases being active. Beginners are given this advice because they can tend to take an excessive time to make the joint, a time exceeding the life of the hot flux. However if you want to solder rapidly, or to solder with minimum component heating, applying solder direct to the iron is usually the way to achieve both those things.

Again, none of the sources I've read recomment heating the joint through liquid solder - the problem is that this leads to high solder

consumption and a good chance of a blob of molten solder running off the joint and landing somewhere it shouldn't. A properly tinned bit is important for heat transfer, since a completely dry tip will have a high thermal resistance (air gap) between the soldering bit and the joint - but you can't drown the joint, either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm somewhere in the middle. I almost always use a bit of molten solder on the tip of the iron to increase thermal transfer to the joint, and on small joints that's often all that's needed. Make sure the flux is still active though! Middlenamefrank (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of this as recommended practice several times (and find that it works bests for me). The contact area between a clean iron and the components is minimal, heat transfer between the two is poor and the result is the components don't wet properly because they're too cool. This is particularly important with cored solder where no additional flux is used, since then there isn't even any flux to fulfill the same role. A solder pool already on the bit massively increases the effective contact area, although as Middlenamefrank suggests you may still need a touch more solder, both to the fill the joint and provide some fresh flux. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes absolutely. Just a little solder on the tip, we termed it a 'heat bridge', greatly increased the heat transfer to the joint. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When the surfaces are adequately heated up, the solder will melt and flow into the joint. The solder supply is then removed from the joint, followed by the heat source."

The solder source is normally removed before the joint flows, not after. It is almost impossible to get proper flow while solder is still being applied to the joint, as flow requires a higher temperature than solder melting point. When enoug solder has been applied the iron is usually kept on the joint a little longer to achieve full wetting & flow.

I dont think even distribution of solder throughout the joint is an aim, nor the norm, nor a requirement for a succesful bond. An uneven distribution with a shape I cant think of the name for is in fact the characteristic appearance of a good through-hole pcb joint.

Again, not my experience - a joint where only 1/3rd the circumferance of the through-hole via is soldered is a joint that will fail, in my experience. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This time I'll take a side. I don't know of an inspector anywhere that would allow a joint that's not at least ALMOST completely wetted out. If it isn't, it probably wasn't properly flux'ed or heated. Middlenamefrank (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trained to never remove the solder before it flows. A good temperature controlled iron, careful tip selection to suit the joint type, correct heat setting, and lots of practice. One 'trick' was to move the solder around the pad to get complete coverage. This was an 'idealised' type of soldering, for maximum reliability.(not speed)--220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Excess solder and unconsumed flux and residues must be wiped from the soldering iron tip between joints"

beginner-speak.

Not necessarily - a large blob of carbonized gunk on the tip will make it difficult to make new joints. Again, every reference I've read says keep the tip clean and tinned, borne out by my own experience. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with shy here too. It may not be NECESSARY to have a clean tip to make a good joint, but it sure makes life easier! Middlenamefrank (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, 'carbonised gunk' may indicate iron too hot, flux possibly 'burning'. Clean tip absolutely. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"but the tip of the iron must be kept wetted with solder ("tinned") constantly when hot to prevent oxidation and corrosion of the tip itself."

mostly, yes, but constantly, no. When reprofiling a tip it is normal to heat it up as bare copper, and apply solder only once hot.

Cue controversy now... many seem to think that the popularity of coated tips somehow prohibits the use of uncoated copper tips.

And keeping the tip wetted does not prevent corrosion - this is precisely why coated tips are so popular. Tabby (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've used unplated and plated tips - the plated ones do last longer, but even a bare loop of #14 copper wire chucked into a soldering pistol will last a long time in an emergency. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've used 'em both too, and I do believe that keeping any tip tinned makes it last longer. I once broke the tip off a dart when I needed an exceptionally fine point. Middlenamefrank (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to vaguely recall that exceess copper in the joint, from an unplated copper tip say, may have made the joint more brittle? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught it is nothing to do with the quality of the joint itself but for preserving the bit: tin from the solder and copper from the bit combine under the heat of the iron to form bronze which is an absolute pig to either solder to or with. Once you get a bronze layer on the tip it either needs filing off (fien with unplated bits) or the bit junking. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"applying solder direct to the iron is usually the way to achieve both those things."

This method can yield soldered pcb joints in about 2 seconds each. Solder on the iron first means greater area of thermal contact to the joint for quicker heating, and as long as the joint is done within a few seconds there is no problem caused. This is pretty standard where high speed hand assembly is used. A high power iron is needed, either thermostatic or one with power boost. Tabby (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a big problem with this sentence as it depends on the type and brand of soldering iron used. "A 100 watt soldering iron may provide too much heat for printed circuit boards, while a 25 watt iron will not provide enough heat for large electrical connectors" It seems he is talking about the old soldering irons that had the premise that more power was better. Modern soldering irons mainly used in the electronics assembly and rework today have a cartridge configuration. The cartridge is composed of a hollow tube with wires inside that in the most advanced systems have a power (24V), ground and sensor cables connected to the very end of the tip where a heating element or resistance is. The resistance then transfers power to the copper (Cu) tip, which in turn melts the solder while transferring energy or heat to the joint or application worked on. While power is important, so is thermal transfer, tip mass and thermal recovery. There are microprocessor controlled 20W irons that will outperform a 70w iron as they have a low mass/power ratio, and great thermal recovery to maintain the temperature and be able to provide continuous stable power. See short video link. http://www.jbctools.com/KB/videosKB/2210penny.wmv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.208.229 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video link above of soldering a heavily oxidized penny shows inclusions and no whetting of the solder, so it is worth noting this must be a how not to demonstration or an example of what heavy oxidation does to the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.62.137 (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good stuff above, but tip shape& size is also important to get the best contact to PCB and lead at the same time if possible. I'd personally never use a 100 watt iron on a PCB if I had a choice, if it was temperature controlled maybe. Shields or large ground planes on RF boards might need it. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With controlled irons the power rating is pretty much meaningless in terms of frying things. From memory a lot of Weller's controlled irons are 80W - they are thermostatically controlled so it isn't a problem. It just means that you have a bit more headroom to keep the bit temperature stable. I use Antex and Hakko stuff myself with powers of 50 and 60W respectively. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“Hand-soldering techniques require a great deal of skill for the as fine-pitch soldering of surface moutn chip packages.”

What does this mean? I don’t know enough about soldering to suggest an appropriate correction, but there is clearly something wrong with this sentence.--Observer6 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It had a spelling error and some stray letters...I believe I've fixed it now. It wasn't a soldering problem, it was a proofreading problem. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External Link for Consideration

I am certainly in a conflict-of-interest situation, so I would like others to judge the value of the content available at this link:

Video and Joint Gallery A 7 minute overview video, large gallery of good and bad joints, and list of references to other guides.

The site is commercial, but this page is mostly encyclopedic in nature with an attempt to provide references for almost all claims. CuriousInventor (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being upfront with your conflict of interest, and discussing it here instead of persistently re-adding the link; all unlike some other contributors. This is definitely in the spirit of wikipedia. I've no personal opinion about the site, but I want to thank you for handling the matter so nicely. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solder Joint

Please define "joint". Thank you. --64.149.33.236 (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look it up in a dictionary. Wizard191 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Based Solder in Potable Systems

Please don't put that nonsense about minerals coating the lead making it safe back in. It's an urban legend and one which contributes to the misuse of lead based solders on potable systems. Yes, this does happen which is why lots of people still have lead in their supply without suffering ill effects, but it doesn't always work that way and that's why lead is banned. Water companies can change the composition of the water at will, without notification which they are perfectly entitled to do and in practice, actually do, do which will disturb the coatings and put lead back in the supply. It also does not always occur, sometimes the coating doesn't happen due to the water composition and then you get people with lead poisoning. If it was safe then lead would not be banned. 82.132.139.212 (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature

To the Softsoldering the temperature is under 450ºC, hardsoldering 450ºC to 900ºC, high temperature soldering more than 900ºC.

To the European International Welding Engineers in Germany at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.117.77 (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tinning and caring for tip

Someone should add a bit on tinning and how to remove oxides off the tip 'WITHOUT' sanding which destroys the plating.--Ericg33 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, the question is where without disrupting the flow of the article. It is also not true in the general case - many larger irons use unplated bits. The article is careful to portray soldering in the round rather than solely electronics assembly and we need to preserve that generality. Crispmuncher (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last post and the generality needs to be preserved. However, I find the entire article unorganized and confusing. I think the problem is that soldering is used in many sectors, for example the soldering one does for pipe work is different from the soldering in the PCB manufacturing sector. They are both soldering but the tools used for the process are very different and in some cases what applies to the pipe work, would be unthinkable to a PCB soldering operator, ESD protection being a good example.--Aisart (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Solder ruins iron tips?

I have heard this is possible because tin erodes chrome and iron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there are two kind of soldering tips, plated and unplated.

Bulleted list item

Unplated tips are basically bare oxygen free copper that gets heat. The problem is that copper oxidizes with the oxygen in the air and if put at a higher temperature, the oxidation will happen very rapidly. To complicate matters further, Tin dissolves copper and the higher the temperature, the faster the dissolution rate will be. These are the kind of tips where you hear people using sandpaper or a file to sharpen and clean.

Bulleted list item

Plated tips have a copper core that is protected by a thin (from 70 up to 300 microns) layer of iron that protects the copper from the air and tin. While the iron reduces the thermal effectiveness of the solder tip it also extends its life as tin takes much longer to dissolve the iron layer. However, the main factor that destroys a tip is mechanical wear. The friction to run the tip up and down the pad or touching the component will eventually create cracks and spots where the tin will enter into direct contact with the copper, and that will eventually create a hole, just like a cavity that will get larger until the tip breaks down. Therefore keeping this sort of tips tinned, will extend their life considerably, anywhere from 10% to 50%.

Bulleted list item

Your mention of chrome is incorrect. Chrome actually repels tin and does not allow it to bond to its surface. That is why is generally plated on areas where one does not want solder to stay (ie: the upper part of the tip).--Aisart (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major change?

Diff I have put the page back to its state before Ebnpebnp made major changes. A quick look at the first reference did not show support for the statement that "Soldering appears to be a hot glue process, but it differs from gluing in that the filler metals alloy with the workpiece at the junction to form a gas- and liquid-tight bond."

In particular, I found no mention of "hot glue" in the reference, nor any mention of the filler metal forming an alloy with the surface material of the workpiece. It is possible that I missed that, so pointing it out will be appreciated. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new and I guess I don't understand how things work

There were multiple errors in the article which I corrected and gave references, yet two different editors rejected my changes. If my revisions were factually incorrect, that would be reasonable, but the rejection seemed to be arbitrary (and I'm not even sure if the editors know anything about soldering vs brazing). I have to say this is a really negative initial experience - all I'm trying to do is improve wikipedia and the changes are rejected. It would seem that the burden of proof would be on the editors to show that my changes were incorrect. Please explain how I can get these changes accepted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebnpebnp (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Preceding comments moved to more logical page position, following Just Plain Bill's comments)

The essential problem is one of undue emphasis. We discuss the difference between the two at reasonable length. If you want to briefly quote the American Welding Society to add background to that then that's fine (they're not an organisation I've ever heard of, but hey, I'm not American). What is not acceptable is to replace this reasoned discussion with single axiomatic assertion that the view of one body in particular in indisputably the correct one. That isn't encyclopedic - there is no such distinction that is universally held. In practice the precise distinction is often blurry because of these differences. It is our job to cover the subject in the round, not according to a single source. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The change was bold, the reversion was prompt, and now we are discussing it. That is a model that seems to work in a collaborative editing project like this. The burden of proof is in fact on the one who wants to make the change.

I've watched, from up close, plenty of eutectic alloy wetting various other metals, but that isn't really a basis for the edits I make here. Wikipedia editing, when it is working the way it is supposed to, is not about any one editor's expertise; it is about verifiability based on reliable sources. Knowledge of the subject is useful for selecting and vetting those sources. I've mentioned one place where the change didn't seem to be backed up by the reference, without getting an answer yet.

If you are looking for a route to get your changes accepted, here is a good place to list them, along with supporting info. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AWS is the final standards authority about soldering, brazing, and welding - somewhat akin to ANSI. They are the organization that names the various brazing alloys (e.g. BAg-5) and they also define the different methods of welding. There's a wiki article about the AWS. As far as I know, the AWS standards apply worldwide, but if there's a corresponding British organization, their standards should be reviewed also. Although I mentioned "Machinery's Handbook" as a reference, the AWS is the final authority.

The revisions I proposed are mostly correcting factual errors (e.g. brazing is NOT limited to brass filler metals - geez, that's stupid), although I removed some additional material that was duplicated. Also, note that there is some discussion about silver soldering vs silver brazing and that paragraph concluded that "silver brazing" is the correct term.

I really don't understand why its so difficult to make changes that are substantiated by multiple references. How else are improvements going to happen to wikipedia ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebnpebnp (talk • contribs) 23:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The AWS is the final standards authority..." According to whom? And for whom, i.e. where? In Britain where I live and work? Of course not. By definition an American society is not universal: they are not the single recognised body with jurisdiction over these matters even if we accept your assertion within the US, which I do not in any case. Therefore we don't report only what they say. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The AWS standards are used by all companies in the US, are used in Machinery's Handbook, most companies selling brazing products, and every soldering text that I've looked at. If not the AWS, who? I clearly said in my previous comment that there may be a corresponding British organization, although a cursory search didn't find one. I did find a standard EN 1044:1999 for brazing filler metals, apparently a EU standard. But the point is about the definition of brazing vs soldering, whether brazing is limited to brass, and the term "silver soldering" I point you to http://www.jm-metaljoining.com/technical-pages.asp?parentid=1&sectionid=1 (a british company). After you read this, please let me revise the article to correct the mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebnpebnp (talk • contribs) 03:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Addendum - I just noticed the comment from JustPlainBill about "hot glue" This was in the original article so I didn't change anything. It seems unimportant and I'd favor deletion, but that wasn't the main purpose of my revisions. To summarize:[reply]

Define soldering as below 450 degrees C and brazing as above 450.

Eliminate the statement that brazing uses brass filler metals - while that is true, it also uses silver, aluminum, and many other filler metals.

Point out that the term "silver soldering", although widely used is incorrect. It should be "silver brazing" (although some solders have a few percent of silver).

Exactly what is necessary to get approval to correct these errors - an outside expert? more documentation? Like I say, I'm new here and don't understand why it is so difficult to correct an error. If I'm in error, please let me know (although I'm quite sure of my facts). 64.206.251.206 (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The temperature definition could be contentious. Most soldering is done at temperatures far below 450° C.
The statement about filler metals used in brazing could use clarification; no problem there.
The "Processes" section already says:

"Although the term "silver soldering" is used much more often than "silver brazing", it may be technically incorrect depending on the exact melting point of the filler in use."

Do you think that needs to be given more emphasis somewhere else? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns go much deeper than that - there are major errors in classification between soldering and brazing. Remember, there's already a wiki article on brazing. Soldering and brazing are two similar but distinct processes that differentiated by the melting point of the filler metal. I'm not making this up - its part of the AWS standards, and as far as I can tell, its part of the EU and british standards also. Here are my specific recommendations: In the 2nd paragraph, it says there's 3 types of soldering. NOT TRUE - there's only soldering. Brazing is separate, although brazing using a high-silver filler metal is often but erroneously called "silver soldering" Also, brazing uses many types of filler metal, not just silver. SO my revision is:

Soldering or "soft soldering" is characterized by having a melting point of the filler metal below 842°F/450°C, and most often consist of alloys of tin, lead, and other metals. Brazing (often called hard soldering or silver soldering) use higher temperatures, typically requiring a flame or furnace to achieve the melting of the filler. Some solders contain small percentages of silver and are called "silver solders", but these must be distinguished from true brazing alloys.

In the "Applications" paragraph, there are several references to silver soldering. These should be moved to the brazing article. Also the comments about the "bright light" produced by brazing is almost comical - there's a faint orange glow when brazing, hardly a "bright light" this should be deleted.

In the "Processes" section, paragraph that starts with "The distinction. . ." needs major revision. In the US and as far as I know the EU, the difference is the melting point of the filler metal. The paragraph that starts with "hard soldering" should be moved to the brazing article The paragraph that starts with "induction soldering" still references brazing. move or delete

The entire article needs a major revision, but I don't have the time do it so I was just trying to correct factual errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.251.206 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I'm ready to apply edits, but I don't want to just have them reverted again, so could I get some guidance on what will be accepted and what won't. Or I could submit a draft somewhere and work with someone until its acceptable. Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks, Ebnpebnp (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With a Help:Userspace draft you can prepare a complete rewrite, but a piecemeal approach usually works better. First, present a changed paragraph, or a new paragraph, here in the talk page. Or a few paragraphs if the changes are all small. If someone says "Oh no, you're getting it all wrong" then you must discuss the objection. If nobody objects in a few days, go ahead and insert the change in the article and propose the next. Pretty soon you'll gain the confidence of your fellow editors and your own self-confidence, and can just go ahead and make changes, even big ones, directly. It's a team sport. You have to get along with your teammates even though they're all strangers. Sometimes you'll find an authentic idiot on a team but usually it's just a matter of mistrust caused by misunderstanding. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead free soldering temperature

The section on lead free soldering says that it is a 'common misconception' that lead soldering requires more heat than leaded. I can't find anything in the cited reference to support this, and as someone who works in the industry I can say that we certainly use higher temperatures in the non-leaded process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.230.158 (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Reballing" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Reballing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 10#Reballing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 08:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 edits

I pulled out most of the application-specific material out of the old “Processes” section, and renamed it “Soldering vs. Brazing”, since the remaining material in that section is concerned mostly with that. The section still remains a bit of a mess, unfortunately. My interest is mainly with electronics soldering, and I’m not knowledgeable enough to compare and contrast soldering across diverse applications. I also renamed “Tools” to “Heating methods”. I feel that, aside from the heating methods, tools are (mostly) specific to the application and process, and does not benefit from consolidation in a single section. Material on application- and process-specific tools were moved to their respective sections. DriveByWriter (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soldering

Please provide some information about soldering materials. 2409:4063:211E:50BB:B382:CFB1:BC02:4504 (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Literature

Hans-Joachim Peter: Handbook of Inductive Soldering, Hans-Joachim Peter Verlag Berlin, 2017, ISBN 978-3-00-064582-2 (www.induktionsloeten-peter.de/en) Hansjoa (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]