King of Kaka and Prince of Poo.  I like that.  Brian, you are one of the 
guys I wish I could do the Vulcan mind meld with.  The depth of your 
knowledge and experience is still something that awes me.

The issue of component cleanliness is being pursued at IPC, as Joe alluded 
to earlier.  From a practical standpoint, it is not really any different 
that the board or assembly testing that is already being pursued.  It is 
just an issue of sample size and signal vs. noise consideration.  You can 
do IC analysis on small components, such as the reballed BGAs that Phil 
talked about, or SMT capacitors, but you have to have a lot of them to 
bring up the signal to measurable levels.

I have worked quite a bit with Graham on his line of ionic cleanliness 
testers, the successor to Brians Contaminometer.  In fact, I have one of 
his CM-22s coming in this week for some tests.  I know that Graham and his 
staff have been working hard to make these instruments sensitive enough to 
use for true process control and as a true analytical tool for production. 
 I am pretty sure this will be a topic of discussion at the Apex meetings 
in March.  Which you should all be attending, right?

Doug Pauls



From:   Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
To:     TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, 
[log in to unmask]
Date:   02/19/2014 02:32 AM
Subject:        Re: [TN] Cleanliness testing at component level



In 1983, my now defunct company introduced the Microcontaminometer MCM-1 
which what I claimed was the most sensitive conductivity meter in the 
world. The smallest tank was 26 x 26 x 5 mm, to take 1" wafers, DILs, 
SOILs, passive components (remember we were still mostly in the 
through-hole components era then, except for hybrids). It could measure 
a single diode, down to the most sensitive range of 0-1 µg/cm² eq. NaCl. 
A better description is on pp 317-9, if you happen to have my book. An 
improved MCM-2 with better software on a PC was launched in 1989. I 
guess I must have been ahead of my time by some 30 years or so because 
measuring component contamination has been a very silent subject up to 
now; I can't remember how many MCMs were sold but you could count the 
number on two hands, at least until I ceded the Contaminometer range to 
a third party in 1991 and I think they dropped the MCM range. I have no 
idea if Graham Naisbitt's company, which now has the rights to the 
know-how, is exploiting this niche market.

Guess Doug has inherited my titles of King of Kaka and Prince of Poo 
(actually, I know in Germany I was nicknamed the Reinigung Papst - 
Cleaning Pope, slightly more complimentary!). For the anecdote, a guy in 
the UK Ministry of Defence called our APL-5 aqueous cleaning machine the 
best solderability tester in the world; you just had to look at the 
components in the sump to see which ones weren't solderable!

As for discussing the subject within the IPC, I'm obviously far too old 
to participate actively in a committee and I am really well out of touch 
with modern components (I retired in 1997), but would be honoured to be 
able to help in the editing of any proposals. Modern technology would 
make this easy with e-mails and possibly Skype.

Brian

On 18.02.2014 22:53, Douglas Pauls wrote:
> That's me, the Emperor of Effluvium, Duke of Dirt, Sultan of Schmutz, 
the
> Marquis of Mud ...........
>
> As Joe indicated, cleanliness at the component level, or at least very
> small sub-assembly is being examined.  Once IPC as an organization gets
> its hands around how do you determine cleanliness at that level and give
> some guidelines on what is desirable, then it can go into larger
> specifications like J-STD-001.
>
> Doug Pauls
>
>
>
> From:   "Stadem, Richard D." <[log in to unmask]>
> To:     <[log in to unmask]>
> Date:   02/18/2014 02:34 PM
> Subject:        Re: [TN] Cleanliness testing at component level
> Sent by:        TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Yes, the lack of component cleanliness requirements in IPC documents is
> lacking. Are they covered in JEDEC standards? If so, I think there 
should
> be a reference within the IPC documents, especially those standards
> dealing with cleanliness and contamination issues to the next level
> (contagion). And no, I am not going to be a part of that committee, as I
> am suffering sufficient filth unto today to keep me busy thereof. Maybe
> Doug Pauls and Terry Munson? Those guys know dirt like nobody else.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:56 PM
> To: Stadem, Richard D.; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Cleanliness testing at component level
>
> Dean,
>
> No, I agree with you completely.   I just don't see the specification
> addressing component level.   I would like to see the words "component
> level" added so that everyone sees it the way we do.
>
> In my case, the pre-tinned component may be shipped back to me and sit 
in
> stock for a year before it is assembled onto a PWA which is subsequently
> tested for cleanliness.
>
> Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stadem, Richard D. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:00 AM
> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Bavaro, Phillip @ MWG - TW
> Subject: RE: Cleanliness testing at component level
>
> For me, the difference between components and assemblies is becoming so
> blurred that it is very difficult to determine where the spec applies 
and
> where it doesn't.
> Can you tell me that a PoP component consisting of 4 stacked miniature
> pwbs that is soldered together using a special flux and laser as well as
> standard solder and flux and touched up and cleaned in an in-line 
cleaner
> does not require the same treatment by the specification as the 36" by 
24"
> supercomputer CCA that has 24 layers, 36 miles of copper traces, weighs 
45
> lbs when populated with just 24 sockets?
> Why?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Bavaro
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] Cleanliness testing at component level
>
> I have reviewed the J-STD-001 several times but still have a question
> regarding a subcontractor who performs component level soldering
> operations for Class 3 hardware.
>
>
> If the subcontractor is performing a soldering operation, then cleaning 
is
> required to remove flux residues (this is not  a no clean flux 
situation).
>
> If the subcontractor is cleaning, then cleanliness testing is required.
>
> The J-STD-001 does not really address the component level when it comes 
to
> the Post Soldering Cleanliness Designator (PSCD).
>
> If a component is having its leads pre-tinned or a BGA being re-balled,
> then is it defaulted to a C-22 PSCD?
>
> My position is yes but I can see where there might be arguments against
> this since the designator codes seem to speak to the assembly level and
> not the component level.
>
> My concern is that there is considerable time lag between when component
> soldering operations are performed relative to the actual PWA process
> which does get checked for cleanliness.
>
> Any input is appreciated.
> ________________________________
>   This message and any attachments are solely for the use of the 
addressee
> and may contain L-3 proprietary information that may also be defined as
> USG export controlled technical data. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any disclosure, use or distribution of its content is
> prohibited. Please notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately
> delete this message and any attachments.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud 
service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or 
[log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud 
service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or 
[log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud 
service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or 
[log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>




______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________