TECHNET Archives

April 2018

TechNet@IPC.ORG
Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 17:03:57 -0500
Reply-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, David Hillman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
A Fungus Nutrient Question
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
From:
David Hillman <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (13 lines) 
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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2