3 ms·
Except that we're on HN so it shouldn't really surprise anyone that I'm using these "expensive" tools to solder and correct 0402 and sometimes 0201 parts. Effe
by peteforde 5mo ago
Except that we're on HN so it shouldn't really surprise anyone that I'm using these "expensive" tools to solder and correct 0402 and sometimes 0201 parts.
Effectively impossible without a stereo microscope.
- sandreas 5mo agoI soldered a backlight fuse of a Lenovo T480s with a 35$ iron and a 10x magnifier, see [1] (german) I'm not trying to proof you wrong but sometimes good enough will do. However, good tools are worth the money most of the time. 1: https://www.computerbase.de/forum/threads/t480s-backlight-sicherung-fuse-im-eimer.2044652/#post-26114606 https://www.computerbase.de/forum/threads/t480s-backlight-si...
- peteforde 5mo agoI understand that you're trying to flex a bit to prove your point, but a 2-lead rectangular discrete and dead-bugging a QFN-24/28 are in entirely different spectrums of difficulty. Edit: Apologies, in my head I was replying to a different thread. I would still say that if you're working at that scale you should deploy appropriate tools to make the job simple, fast and repeatable. Doing work on extremely small parts without a stereo microscope offers extremely small returns once you've finished proving your point to nobody watching.