 
| Sender: |
|
| X-To: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:32:44 -0400 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed |
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
it is in the formulation. your vendor should tell you. e.g. "6 Feb
2015 ... Kester 186-18, under MIL-F-14256, was QPL approved as Type
RMA. ... Type RMA flux. This flux possess high thermal stability for
soldering multi-layer assemblies which require a high preheat
temperature. Exposure to high preheat temperatures ... The flux
residue is also moisture and fungus resistant."
On Apr 9, 2018, at 6:03 PM, David Hillman wrote:
> Hi team! Looking for TechNet's sage wisdom. Some folks are familiar
> with
> this but many electronic modules have a "shall not be a fungus
> nutrient
> material" in terms of the components materials, laminate
> materials, etc. I
> was asked the question if "properly reflowed flux materials are
> classified
> as non-fungus nutrient supporting". Does anyone have an knowledge/
> data on
> properly reflowed flux residue being "non fungus nutrient supporting"?
>
> TIA
>
> Dave Hillman
> Rockwell Collins
> [log in to unmask]
|
|
|
