Your knowledge of the process is really valuable. Really important
information here. I know a lot of people using low-residue-flux for rework.
Unless used properly, the flux may not reach temperatures necessary to
polymerize, or sublimate the materials. That can mean big problems. This
little thread could easily save companies 5, 6, or (as you mentioned) 7
figures.
Listen up guys!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 8:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] OA / RMA / No-Clean
>
> I did say ~250°C, not a categorical 250°C. Most 63/37 waves
> operate between 240 and 250°C. There are several mechanisms
> to help in reducing the activity of "no-clean" flux residues.
> The most popular is sublimation. Another is the encapsulation
> of activators in a resin or rosin matrix. A third is the
> chemical decomposition, although I think this is less
> commonly encountered nowadays. A fourth is to polymerise the
> activator either into a relatively harmless chain or to use
> them for cross-linking a prepolymer into a resinous mass.
> There may even be combinations of them. Notwithstanding,
> there is no sich animal as a "no-residue" flux. Even the
> proponents of "no-flux" soldering under a reducing
> atmosphere, such as hydrogen/methane, will find metallic
> compounds where the reduction occurs (for ex., complete
> reduction of copper oxide under hydrogen requires a much
> higher temperature than soldering temperature).
>
> Conclusion: no matter the type of flux, there will always be
> some metal compound residues and some raw and modified flux
> residues. The aim of the manufacturer is to make this residue
> porridge as harmless as possible. Some succeed better than others.
>
> Brian
>
> Guy Ramsey wrote:
>
> > 250°C ! Only the flux directly in contact with the soldering tools
> > would see that temperature. Heck our wave temp isn't 250°C.
> So, what
> > is the physical change? Are you saying then: Low-residue fluxes may
> > not require cleaning because the low level of activators
> remaining are
> > trapped in a residue that may contain them safely, in some
> end use environments?
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
> >>Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 3:57 AM
> >>To: [log in to unmask]
> >>Subject: Re: [TN] OA / RMA
> >>
> >>Yes, that is partly the theory, but what of the practice?
> >>Actually, the change is physical, rather than chemical: at
> soldering
> >>temperature, say ~250°C, most (but never all) of the activators
> >>sublimate into a vapour phase (incidentally, as do the organic
> >>hydrochlorides in WS flux). But sublimation is certainly
> nowhere near
> >>complete at lower temperatures.
> >>What of the flux that penetrates through the holes and up
> the leads,
> >>then spreads out somewhat over the top side of the board? Does that
> >>reach a quasi-complete sublimation temperature? No! Then,
> as the board
> >>moves through the sublimated vapour, can you guarantee that none of
> >>this vapour will not condense on cooler components? No, I
> thought not.
> >>Then, if some flux or vapour is trapped under a component with low
> >>clearance, what action is there to ensure that it is
> evacuated? Then
> >>there is the possibility of hydrogen bonding between activator
> >>molecules and the surface of the epoxy substrate. If this
> occurs, then
> >>the bond will be stronger than the forces causing sublimation.
> >>
> >>Take any board soldered with such fluxes and make an
> extract from it
> >>and analyse the extract: you will find considerable quantities of
> >>activators present (the quantity will diminish with time, as the
> >>sublimation process will continue slowly, even at room temperature).
> >>
> >>Can these quantities be dangerous? Yes, sometimes. There is a
> >>well-known but undocumented (for obvious reasons) case of a
> European
> >>telecoms manufacturer making street-box multiplexer assemblies on
> >>large four-layer boards, in the late 1980s.
> >>After a few months, some boards started to trickle back
> with corrosion
> >>and malfunctioning. Then the flood started. Under the conditions of
> >>street boxes, the flux residues started reacting.
> Incidentally, this
> >>manufacturer happened to be using the same "no-clean" flux as the
> >>anecdote I recounted in the previous post. This error cost the
> >>manufacturer something in the seven figures.
> >>As it happens, I was slightly involved because he changed
> to WS and I
> >>supplied the ionic contamination tester for his subsequent process
> >>control. OK, this was possibly an extreme example of the
> manufacturer
> >>not properly qualifying his process and materials (I can
> assure you he
> >>did it well, second time round, even introducing conformal
> coating for
> >>street box electronics which are, of course, subject to
> condensation
> >>conditions, on occasion).
> >>
> >>Another case I was involved with was a manufacturer of high power
> >>electronics, running on 380 V 3 phase circuits with currents in the
> >>hundreds of amps. He had been using a "no-clean" flux
> (known make) for
> >>over 2 years, without problems. He then decided to contract the
> >>assembly/soldering to an outside company, also using a "no-clean"
> >>(unknown make) flux. The results were catastrophic (and
> spectacular).
> >>I was asked to find out why, in the first batch produced outside,
> >>whole conductors on 105 µm thick copper, several millimetres wide,
> >>between the power in connectors and the fuses, had literally
> >>volatilised, while the fuses were intact, after a few days in real
> >>service. It transpired that flux residues under and around
> the massive
> >>fuse-holders had started to conduct, heated up, sublimated and
> >>condensed on the top of the fuse-holders, where the
> clearance between
> >>them was too small, causing a flash-over. This illustrates that not
> >>all "no-clean" fluxes and their residues are created equal, even if
> >>some are more equal than others!
> >>
> >>Brian
> >>
> >>Blair K. Hogg wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Brian,
> >>>
> >>>Interesting story. However, isn't the principle behind NC
> >>
> >>flux that the flux changes chemically with the heat of
> soldering and
> >>then becomes non-corrsive?
> >>
> >>>Blair
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>[log in to unmask] 05/04/04 11:08AM >>>
> >>>
> >>>Phil
> >>>
> >>>In all the many tens of installations I have done, never
> >>
> >>once have I
> >>
> >>>used any parts that contact the flux that were not in PVC, PP or
> >>>titanium (notably fingers), other than the sintered
> plastic foaming
> >>>"stone". Big mistake to use brass or stainless steel, both
> of which
> >>>are attacked like gangbusters by the flux. I agree that a PVC air
> >>>knife is very useful for adjusting the quantity of flux,
> >>
> >>before the pre-heat.
> >>
> >>>Actually, the worst case of corrosion I have seen of a soldering
> >>>machine was not with a WS flux but with a "no-clean" of a
> >>
> >>particular
> >>
> >>>brand made in N. Europe. I was visiting a factory which had
> >>
> >>been using
> >>
> >>>it for several years for telecoms equipment. I "naively" asked the
> >>>engineer whether he was not worried about his boards corroding in
> >>>service. He replied that the flux in question was non-corrosive,
> >>>bringing forth the manufacturer's data sheet as "proof". I
> >>
> >>then asked
> >>
> >>>him, equally naively, how he explained that every bit of
> iron/steel
> >>>was practically rusted through in a 50 cm radius round his
> >>
> >>fluxer. He
> >>
> >>>had a good look, turned pale and said, "Mon Dieu!"!!! :-( I
> >>
> >>then asked
> >>
> >>>him what qualification tests he had done and he replied that their
> >>>sole criterion was the "no-clean" flux that soldered best.
> >>
> >>It simply
> >>
> >>>hadn't occurred to him that high-activity = high risks. I
> >>
> >>knew what to
> >>
> >>>expect because I had seen other cases with that one,
> >>
> >>particular, flux.
> >>
> >>>I just checked and this same flux is still manufactured!
> >>>
> >>>Brian
> >>>
> >>>Phil Nutting wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ramon,
> >>>>
> >>>>Brass fittings in the Flux tank were eaten through, rivets
> >>
> >>on the fluxer assembly were dissolved to the point where they fell
> >>out, the stainless steel enclosure of the flux reservoir and fluxer
> >>now look rusty and the excess flux dripping off boards into the
> >>pre-heat elements have caused flash over arcs that trip circuit
> >>breakers.
> >>
> >>>>The solutions to date have been to change the brass
> >>
> >>fittings to stainless steel, the rivets have not been replaced, the
> >>stainless enclosures are cleaned more frequently and the
> air knife has
> >>been adjusted for air velocity and angle to reduce the amount of
> >>excess flux.
> >>
> >>>>These items sound like we have a lot a trouble with OA (or
> >>
> >>WS), but it yields better boards as Brian Ellis has outlined.
> >> I'll take the problems to get better yield.
> >>
> >>>>Phil
> >>>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: Dehoyos, Ramon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 8:27 AM
> >>>>To: Phil Nutting; [log in to unmask]
> >>>>Subject: RE: [TN] OA / RMA
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks Phil:
> >>>> What parts of the machine have been eaten or
> >>
> >>corroded and what steps have you made to slow down the corrosion?
> >>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Ramon
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>From: Phil Nutting [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> >>>>>Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 2:25 PM
> >>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>Subject: Re: [TN] OA / RMA
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ramon,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>About 3 years ago we switched from a no clean flux to an
> >>
> >>OA flux. This change was driven by a change in board washing
> >>equipment. We had been using a Terpene & Alcohol based
> batch system
> >>that no one liked and switched to a closed loop DI batch cleaner.
> >>
> >>>>>The plus side has been better solder joints out of the
> >>
> >>wave and cleaner looking boards after cleaning.
> >>
> >>>>>The minus side has been that the OA flux really eats up
> >>
> >>everything in sight in the wave soldering machine. We have
> accepted
> >>this as a cost of business when using the OA flux.
> >>
> >>>>>The good out-weighs the bad.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Phil
> >>>>>
> >>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Dehoyos, Ramon
> >>>>>Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 2:19 PM
> >>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>Subject: [TN] OA / RMA
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Technetters:
> >>>>> Has anybody done a comparison study of
> >>
> >>RMA/OA fluxes for wavesolder? Or any personal experiences in this
> >>regard will be appreciated..
> >>
> >>>>> Thanks in Advance
> >>>>> Ramon
> >>>>>
> >>>>>---------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
> >>
> >>LISTSERV 1.8e To
> >>
> >>>>>unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> >>
> >>following text
> >>
> >>>>>in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To
> >>
> >>temporarily
> >>
> >>>>>halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
> >>>>>[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive
> >>
> >>ONE mailing
> >>
> >>>>>per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET
> >>>>>Technet Digest Search the archives of previous posts at:
> >>>>>http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site
> >>>>>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3..16 for additional
> >>>>>information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> >>>>>847-509-9700 ext.5315
> >>>>>-----------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>---------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
> >>
> >>LISTSERV 1.8e To
> >>
> >>>>>unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> >>
> >>following text
> >>
> >>>>>in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To
> >>
> >>temporarily
> >>
> >>>>>halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
> >>>>>[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive
> >>
> >>ONE mailing
> >>
> >>>>>per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET
> >>>>>Technet Digest Search the archives of previous posts at:
> >>>>>http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site
> >>>>>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3..16 for additional
> >>>>>information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> >>>>>847-509-9700 ext.5315
> >>>>>-----------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>---------------------------------------------------
> >>>>Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
> >>
> >>LISTSERV 1.8e To
> >>
> >>>>unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> >>
> >>following text in
> >>
> >>>>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To
> >>
> >>temporarily halt
> >>
> >>>>or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
> >>
> >>[log in to unmask]: SET
> >>
> >>>>Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE mailing per day of all the
> >>>>posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
> >>
> >>Search the
> >>
> >>>>archives of previous posts at:
> >>
> >>http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
> >>
> >>>>visit IPC web site
> >>
> >>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3..16
> >>
> >>>>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
> >>>>[log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> >>>>-----------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>---------------------------------------------------
> >>>Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
> >>
> >>LISTSERV 1.8e To
> >>
> >>>unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> >>
> >>following text in
> >>
> >>>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To
> >>
> >>temporarily halt
> >>
> >>>or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
> >>
> >>[log in to unmask]: SET
> >>
> >>>Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE mailing per day of all the
> >>>posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
> >>
> >>Search the
> >>
> >>>archives of previous posts at:
> >>
> >>http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
> >>
> >>>visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
> >>>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
> >>>[log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> >>>-----------------------------------------------------
> >>>*******************************************************************
> >>>This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> >>>intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
> >>
> >>whom they
> >>
> >>>are addressed. If you have received this email in error
> >>
> >>please notify
> >>
> >>>the system manager.
> >>>
> >>>This footnote also confirms that this email message has
> >>
> >>been swept for
> >>
> >>>the presence of computer viruses.
> >>>
> >>>www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated
> >>>
> >>>---------------------------------------------------
> >>>Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
> >>
> >>LISTSERV 1.8e To
> >>
> >>>unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> >>
> >>following text in
> >>
> >>>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To
> >>
> >>temporarily halt
> >>
> >>>or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
> >>
> >>[log in to unmask]: SET
> >>
> >>>Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE mailing per day of all the
> >>>posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
> >>
> >>Search the
> >>
> >>>archives of previous posts at:
> >>
> >>http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
> >>
> >>>visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
> >>>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
> >>>[log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> >>>-----------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------------
> >>Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
> LISTSERV 1.8e To
> >>unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> following text in
> >>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To
> temporarily halt
> >>or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
> [log in to unmask]: SET
> >>Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE mailing per day of all the
> >>posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
> Search the
> >>archives of previous posts at:
> http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
> >>visit IPC web site
> >>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
> >>information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> >>847-509-9700 ext.5315
> >>-----------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
> LISTSERV 1.8e To
> > unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> following text in
> > the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To
> temporarily halt
> > or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
> [log in to unmask]: SET
> > Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE mailing per day of all the
> > posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
> Search the
> > archives of previous posts at:
> http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
> > visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
> > for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
> > [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV
> 1.8e To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF
> Technet To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet
> send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
> To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail
> to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest Search the archives
> of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
> visit IPC web site
> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for
> additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
> [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
-----------------------------------------------------
|
