TECHNET Archives

September 2003

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:
Mon, 8 Sep 2003 17:08:36 +0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (75 lines)
Cor, blimey! Some people know the books better than the author!!! Shows
what senility does to one!

I had forgotten that I'd put the water-containing side in a
thermostatted bath.

I know I did an acrylic as part of the same experiment, but I think the
result was quasi-zero diffusion through it and I didn't really believe
it was that good. This is probably why it is not mentioned. I also did a
phenol-formaldehyde lacquer, which was what had been used up to then, as
an internal reference. Its electrical characteristics at high
frequencies was hopeless and was the reason for the experiment as it had
to be replaced. For reference purposes, it was checked (it took several
days to build it up to 5 mm!) and was about as bad as the silicone (I
think a little worse, if my memory still serves me).

As I said earlier, I'm enthusiastic about acrylics in non-chemical, cool
environments but do not recommend them if the board temp (including
components) is likely to exceed ~60°C at any time. I used acrylics very
successfully for apps going up to 1E14 ohms, where I'm sure that others
may have failed.

Brian

Steve Gregory wrote:
> In a message dated 09/05/2003 2:03:30 AM Central Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
>> I thought I had reported the details of this in
>> my book, but could not find them today. Must have been somewhere else.
>
>
>
> Hi Brian!
>
> It is in your book, on page 329, at the bottom of the section where you
> talk about Silicone Elastomers.
>
> In your book you state that you made a diaphram of silicone that was 5mm
> thick, and 100mm in diameter. On one side the air was held at 40 degrees
> C., and 95% RH, the other side at 5% RH. There was 1g of water vapor per
> day allowed to pass through the silicone diaphram. You stated that is 40
> times worse than epoxies, and 20 times worse than polyurethanes.
>
> Do you have any idea about arcylics?
>
> Regards,
>
> -Steve Gregory-
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
> 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 or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
> [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
> To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to
> [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
> Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site
> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
> ext.5315
> -----------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
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 or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
-----------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2