TECHNET Archives

April 2004

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:
"Kane, Joseph E" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:06:11 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (68 lines)
We're trying to qualify a water soluble flux, Alpha 3355 HB, for
wave soldering our military product.  We've installed an ultrasonic
spray fluxer for our wave solder machine, and an in-line aqueous
cleaner with Vigon A200 in the wash section.

We've performed SIR testing in accordance with J-STD-001C
Appendix B.  We've also done ion chromatography on some
production boards, some testing with our Omega Meter, and for
good measure, we conformal coated some samples and ran them
through ten-day humidity.  Everything looks good.

We're not making this change lightly.  We think we've done our
homework, and we've got good equipment and process controls.
But before we implement, we're reviewing with some of our
customers, and we're having trouble with one.

Their Objection #1 is that J-STD-001 doesn't permit water soluble
flux for Class 3.  Obviously, that's not how we read it, because
para. 4.2.b says:

When other activity levels or flux materials are used, data
demonstrating compliance with testing of Appendix B shall 7
be available for review.

They get hung up on 4.2.c:

Type H or M fluxes may be used only for tinning of terminals, solid
wire and sealed components when performed as part of an integrated
fluxing, soldering, cleaning, and cleanliness test system.

They see "may be used only for tinning..." and stop there.  We
see "may be used only for tinning...when performed as part of..."
In other words, we think that subparagraph b allows you to qualify
for soldering per Appendix B, subparagraph c says that if you
pretin, you must also clean and test.

Their Objection #2 is that nobody else is out there using water
soluble flux to solder flight-qualified military hardware.  We know
for a fact that this is not true, because we have a sister plant that
does this, as does one of our competitors just down the road.

First question, a plea really, does anyone have an opinion about
the intent of J-STD-001C paragraph 4.2?

Second question - who else out there is using water soluble flux
for Class 3 military?  Can you say which flux?  Which military
programs?

I won't use anyone's company name without permission, but I
need to let our our customer know that we're not trying something
crazy and without precedent.  If we can get beyond that, I think we
can have meaningful discussion with them about our equipment,
testing, and process controls.

Joe Kane
BAE SYSTEMS Controls
Johnson City, NY

---------------------------------------------------
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