TECHNET Archives

June 1997

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:
Date:
Wed, 25 Jun 97 16:18:50 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
waterbased (24 lines)
UGH! (the call phrase seems to be varying a lot in this net, so I have
to try also..)
              What do you think about waterbased fluxes vs. old standard
fluxes in the following application: sometimes we get in components
(LCC, TOs, SOTs, encapsulated processors etc) with questionable leg
finish. The electroless Gold is thin or porous, and the Nickel barrier
layer is already oxidized during the storage time of a number of monts.
In order to improve the solderability we have to pretin the legs before
SMT. Now, some say that you have to use certain waterbased fluxes to
remove oxides, others say waterbased fluxes make things even worse. Some
persons have to be the 'ass between the haystacks', and that does not
work either. Is there a black-and-white answer? / Best regards / Ingemar 

***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To subscribe/unsubscribe send a message <to: [log in to unmask]>   *
* with <subject: subscribe/unsubscribe> and no text in the body.          *
***************************************************************************
* If you are having a problem with the IPC TechNet forum please contact   *
* Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask]      *
***************************************************************************


ATOM RSS1 RSS2