TECHNET Archives

February 2000

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:
Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:17:14 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (155 lines)
Doug

What you say may be true for the USA. It is most decidedly not true for what the
Montreal Protocol classes as Article 5(1) countries, comprising getting on for 100
developing nations. These can and do legitimately use CFC-113 azeotropes for defluxing
and may continue to do so until 2006. Furthermore, believe it or not, the MP is a
living thing, albeit slower than a snail. A new solvent was introduced into it as late
as last December, chlorobromomethane, subject to ratification of the amendment. It may
be that n-propyl bromide will also be regulated at the next meeting.

There is a real problem introducing alternative technologies into developing nations
because, as in the electronics industry worldwide, the majority of producers are SMEs
and, whereas a small American or European company may spend some thousands of dollars
or more on new equipment and processes, it may be out of the question for one in India,
China, Zimbabwe or Peru, even if they had the technical know-how, which they don't.
They are also so small, that the implementing agencies for the MP Multilateral Fund
cannot even identify them to offer aid, let alone cater to their needs. This is a very
REAL problem.

Just to step the argument up a little more: are you sure that there is no CFC-113 used
for defluxing in the USA and Europe? I'm not only not sure, on the contrary, I'm sure
there are still thousands of tonnes being used per year, from three sources:
- legitimately stockpiled quantities
- legitimately recycled solvent
- illegal imports, mainly from Art. 5(1) countries but also from some developed ones.

Furthermore, there are OD solvents which are not in the annexes of the MP, hence may be
used legitimately.

No, Doug, those of us at the sharp end of the problem are tearing our hair out (haven't
much left, anyway!) trying to find the solutions to solve all these problems. If the
writer of the first post in this thread is in a developing nation, he may contact me
personally if he needs real assistance or even if he is in a developed country. I'll
put him in contact with the right guy to help him find a real and practical answer for
the conditions he is in, if he cannot do it for himself. (I'm doing this kind of thing
for 50% of my time). Absolute confidentiality is assured.

Best regards

Brian

Douglas Pauls wrote:

> In a message dated 02/10/2000 2:24:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> >
> >  I have a question for the "guru's" of PWB cleaning, and obviously it
> relates
> > to the new legislation (Montreal Protocol)
>
> ??New???
>
> >  which now bans the use of Ozone
> >  depleting substances containing CFC based materials.  So, with that in
> >  mind...."What are the best "cleaning solutions" (chemicals) to use which
> are
> >  most effective for removing the flux residuals from PWB's that also has
> >  compatibility with a wide variety of different chemicals and materials
> such
> > as adhesives, connectors, sleeving, wire, inks, epoxies and etc.?"
>
> That depends.  Define compatibility.
>
> > In essence, we all know that establishing a suitable substitute is no small
> task, and
> >  involves many trade-offs as well.   However, I would appreciate anyone
> > sharing  their experience with regard to this endeavor.
>
> Wow, I haven't had an ODS alternative question for three years or so.
> Figured it was a dead issue.  When the Montreal Protocol was put into effect
> in the late 1980s, and Congress nailed the coffin shut with the Clean Air Act
> of 95 (?), most manufacturers saw the writing on the wall and started working
> towards alternatives.  In my experience, most military contractors went the
> route of staying with high solids rosin fluxes, but changed to alternative
> cleaning.  This was driven primarily by the MIL-STD-2000A contracts, which
> only got painful if you went to a "non-rosin" flux, like a water soluble or
> no clean.  Some tried to go the route of HCFCs, using products such as
> Genesolv 2004, but it was not long before the EPA put HCFCs in the same bad
> class as CFCs.  Most contractors then transitioned to semi-aqueous cleaning,
> such as Axarel or Bioact.
>
> The IPC had a program in place to evaluate alternative cleaning materials and
> processes.  The benchmarking of Freon TMS was written up in IPC-TR-580.  A
> brilliantly written document (guess who). In Phase 2 of the program, the
> benchmark test was repeated for many different cleaning materials and
> technologies.  Somewhere in my archives I have the final listing of all of
> the products which passed that testing protocol.  EMPF, while still in
> Indianapolis, did most of the testing.  You might get copies of those reports
> from either EMPF (now in Philly) or from Petroferm in Fernandina Beach,
> Florida, who now sells most of the materials on that list.  The Test
> Monitoring and Validation Team (TMVT), which I chaired, was disbanded some 4
> or 5 years ago due to lack of further testing to monitor.  The IPC also had
> several Phase 3 efforts, looking at water soluble flux, low solids flux in
> air, and low solids flux in nitrogen, and how they compared to the Phase 1
> Benchmark.
>
> While the move from ODS materials was painful for most, I think it produced
> better hardware in the end.  Freon was not really a very good cleaner, but it
> had a good blend of properties.  I see much better cleanliness levels now
> from saponified cleaning than I ever saw from Freon or Trike.  The change
> forced most manufacturers to REALLY look at their process and understand the
> materials and materials compatibility issues involved.
>
> Bottom line:  if you asked me today what one method would I invest in as an
> ODS cleaning alternative, I would choose aqueous cleaning with deionized
> water (140F min) with the addition of a good saponifier.  Contact me off line
> if you are interested in my saponifier of choice.
>
> Doug Pauls
> Technical Director
> CSL
>
> ##############################################################
> TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
> ##############################################################
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the body:
> To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
> To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TECHNET
> ##############################################################
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
> information.
> If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-509-9700 ext.5365
> ##############################################################



--
Brian Ellis
Protonique SA
PO Box 78
CH-1032 Romanel-sur-Lausanne, Switzerland
Voice: +41 21-648 23 34 Fax: +41 21-648 24 11
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: Technical and consultancy divisions:
       http://www.protonique.com
     Web services division:
       http://www.protonique.com/webserv

##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################

ATOM RSS1 RSS2