TECHNET Archives

July 1998

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Justin Braime <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 2 Jul 1998 08:53:52 +1200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (79 lines)
Evan,
A couple of ideas for you:
1) Does your fluxer have the option of one or two direction spraying? I
have found with some machines that have the option, that if you are running
quite a high conveyor speed you need to use the spray on the return
traverse also.
2) If you are running a relatively high conveyor speed, and consequently a
high fluxer traverse speed, I would recommend moving to a larger pitch
fluxer nozzle. This enables you to reduce your traverse speed, still giving
you the coverage, but giving you effectively more penetration time for the
spray.

Hope this helps
Best Regards

Justin Braime - Process Engineer
Alpine Electronics of New Zealand Ltd
----------
> From: Evan D Jones <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] spray fluxing
> Date: Wednesday, 1 July 1998 16:49
>
> We installed a spray fluxing system on our wave solder machine, based on
a
> Nordson pulse sprayer, a couple of months or so back but have been having
> some problems getting good results. The system utilises a single spray
> nozzle with a fan pattern. The problems we have seen are poor barrel fill
> (presumably due to flux not penetrating PTH barrels), and shadowing
effects
> on bottomside surface mount components.
>  We are using a no clean flux. I tried using an active flux, with the
same
> results, which suggests it is the sprayer setup which is the problem. If
> anyone has some experiences that they can share with me regarding
> successful implementation of airless spray fluxing systems I would be
most
> appreciative. What factors influence penetration? spray pressure?
> extraction?
> Up until now we have been using a foaming fluxer with reasonably good
> results (except for difficulty controlling no-clean residue levels).
>
>
> Regards Evan
>
> Evan Jones
> Manufacturing Engineer
> Bluegum Technology Pty Ltd
> PO Box 609, Wangaratta, Australia, 3676
> Ph: 61 3 5720 2539     Fax: 61 3 5720 2412
> Internet:  [log in to unmask]
>
> ################################################################
> TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV
1.8c
> ################################################################
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
following text in the body:
> To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
> To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TechNet
> ################################################################
> Please visit IPC's web site (http://www.ipc.org) "On-Line Services"
section for additional information.
> For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.312
> ################################################################

################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TechNet 
################################################################
Please visit IPC's web site (http://www.ipc.org) "On-Line Services" section for additional information.
For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.312
################################################################


ATOM RSS1 RSS2