Pico heating element...
Out of curiosity, I checked Farnell and Newark (COO & pricing respectively), and not only is there a notable price difference ($57.77 for the Pico's element v. $131.20 for the Nano's), both are actually made in Germany (if you trust Farnell's COO statements). Makes sense IMHO, as they can keep the "secret sauce" out of the hands of the Chinese to some extent (protect their trade secrets type of thinking).
The assemblies are definitely constructed differently (cost cutting regarding the Pico by using more plastic to reduce assy. processes), but I don't think the internal construction is quite the same either. Even if it's just TC placement (TC to tip distance is increased slightly or in free air rather than metal-metal contact), it would affect performance a bit.
Such a small performance difference may not be noticed in most cases (1 & 2 layer boards for example), but would show itself on higher demand joints that push the station to it's limits (which I still suspect would be reached before the Nano's, based on a few comments in the thread you linked).
As best I can tell, the i-Tool Nano is simply the regular i-Tool, made slimmer, without the rubber grip, and without the accelerometer. (So same on the inside, different on the outside.) The Pico tool is basically the same as the Nano on the outside, but with cheaper guts made down to a price by making more bits out of plastic. But it still has the same heating element inside its cheaper heater module, and it still has a thermocouple. The heater modules have the same number of pins, but different pinouts.
Regarding the plastic shell components for the irons, the cost per unit would be rather small (plastic is cheap + NRE for the molds isn't high when divided out).
Unlike the full blown i-Tool iron, I'd be willing to bet there's zero electronics in either the Nano or Pico. My reasoning for this is twofold.
- First, the Nano and Pico are only meant to be used with the irons that come with them. So there's no need to use a serial ROM to store a tool ID string or any other data (i.e. temp. offsets).
- Second, the base units don't use motion for setback settings, so no need for an accelerometer either.
I mention this, as the photo of the full-fledged i-Tools' PCB only appears to contain a ROM + accelerometer. FWIW, Weller uses the same approach with some of their irons as well (irons for the WX stations for example).
I can't be sure insofar as I haven't tested them both myself (I have the Nano), but I've not heard a single report of them having different performance in practice. Ersa's press release for the Pico swears it's "based on the same heater technology" as the Nano/full i-Con series, and they always quote identical performance specs.
There's just enough information in various posts to make me think there actually is a performance gap. Not drastic, but enough that the Pico will leave a user wanting/needing more if they're pushing it at/near it's limits. And the Nano can fit that bill (i-Con 1/2/4 would be even better of course, as they can provide 80W or even 120W of continuous power
). Such a scenario would be in Ersa's favor at any rate.
And although the basic specs are the same between the Pico and Nano as you pointed out (80W max, 68W continuous), keep in mind however, the electronics may differ as well as the thermal performance of the iron it comes with (and probably do if for no other reason than cost cutting).
I read the "based on the same heater technology" statement as the key for opening up possibilities for variation in performance & implementation, yet still be technically correct (lots of wiggle room regarding "based on"). Things can be left out (i.e. simplified circuit to reduce the BOM cost), made of cheaper materials, or mechanical specs changed (this is discussed above) in order to make something cheaper (or performance to fit product placement). Combine this with the different pin-outs, and it makes me wonder what's changed between them under the hood as it were (just enough hints to get my gears turning).
Regarding manufacturer controlled test conditions, it's easy to demonstrate similar performance if that's their intent (with users unaware of the conditions this is no longer the case). The recent JBC discussion certainly comes to mind.
Ideally, both units need to be tested side-by-side under real world conditions from independent sources (aka EEVBlog members
). But AFAIK, Ersa's the only entity that's done side-by-side testing and they're not revealing the whole story (after all, marketing isn't exactly known to be completely truthful
).
Interesting question about profitability though: the street price for them here in Europe isn't gigantic (like 50€). I wouldn't be surprised if they made more profit on the cheaper Pico, because the manufacturing costs are so much lower than in Germany. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were something like this (educated guesses based on my background in electronics retail):
Pico mfg cost: €30; sale price €130; wholesale price €110 = gross profit €80
Nano mfg cost: €90; sale price €180; wholesale price €140 = gross profit €50
Maybe, but I suspect they're basing MSRP on a 435% markup, so that would produce the following cost per unit for Ersa:
- Pico = ~29.89EUR
- Nano = ~41.38EUR
Puts the Pico where you estimated, but the Nano comes in for a lot less. The production facility in Germany is likely highly automated, so man hours are kept to a minimum despite the higher wages in Germany. It's the basis for my
Nano should be more profitable comment at any rate (a little really does go a long way regarding how cost translates to MSRP).
But indeed, the low cost of the 102 series tips means I barely think twice about ordering one if I want it, and I won't worry if I f••k them up by mixing leaded and lead-free solders. (As an aside, is that really an issue? Maybe you guys can shed some light on that.)
I'm the same way. Not much thought when parting with say $5.00 - $6.00 for a tip, but at $30 a pop, I tend to have reservations (puts a noticeable dent in a $50 - $100 parts/supply budget).
Regarding using the same tip for both lead and lead-free solder, no need to panic.
Just rinse them off well with the next alloy before using it on any joints (keeps you from mixing the alloys which would give you some very strange properties, mechanical in particular that could cause you all kinds of aggravation when fault finding). Also, best to stick with no-clean or rosin based fluxes as organic/water soluble can corrode a tip and joints if not cleaned off properly (still active at room temp).
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
