TECHNET Archives

January 2001

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:
James Moffitt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:59:28 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
Jim/Alcon:  Having worked for the Navy for 30+ years as a civilan QA type I
must say that I have never seen a design that required or permitted entrapped
flux residue.  I'm not sure that either test you are considering would tell
you much unless it were followed by some version of an extraction based
cleanliness test or SIR testing.  In my mind the best analysis method would
be to take the finished product (prior to conformal coating), conduct a ROSE
(or equivalent) test, subject it to the 10-day cyclic temp./humidity test and
repeat the ROSE test.  An increased level of contamination (lower resistance)
on the second ROSE test would imply that a sufficient quantity of process
residuals remain to cause possible problems in fleet use.
Regards, Jim Moffitt, Technical Director, Electronics Training Advantage,
Indianapolis, IN

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
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 delivery of Technet send the following message: SET Technet NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2