TECHNET Archives

November 2007

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:
"David D. Hillman" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Date:
Thu, 1 Nov 2007 18:22:56 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (316 lines)
Hi folks! A big thank you to Graham for very good comments for Sue's 
question (I have been on 8 weeks of business travel which explains the 
lack of response on my part). Just one additional comment. The JSTD-002 
committee has removed the ROL1 descriptor from the flux requirements 
paragraph in the upcoming JSTD-002C specification because of the confusion 
it caused. As Graham stated, the test flux was a standard, specified 
chemistry and not any available ROL1 chemistry. 

Dave Hillman
JSTD-002 Chairman
[log in to unmask]




Graham Naisbitt <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
11/01/2007 06:57 AM
Please respond to
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>; Please respond to
Graham Naisbitt <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: [TN] Flux






Guy et al

Please do not confuse soldering ability with solderability. This was 
a subject covered by Dave Hillman some time ago but its worth 
repeating his words:

?The JSTD-002/003 solderability test standard's purpose is to test 
the robustness of a finish for wettability. Too many people attempt 
to use and/or believe that the standards are designed to mimic 
production conditions, they are not. This would be ?soldering- 
ability? not ?solderability?.

Although the IPC committee has attempted to have the standards 
reflect soldering-ability concerns, it is not possible or practical 
in terms of testing methodology to mimic production. There are so 
many flux/process combination that the standards would cease to be of 
value; they would be huge and contain a multitude of variations.

The test parameters contained in the standards are designed to have 
some safety margin in terms of demonstrating the solderability of a 
surface - a test which gives either a false positive or false 
negative result is not of value to the industry.?

Now then, Sue asked about the flux used in the test and why it was 
changed.

We, in the committee, were faced with the need to develop the 
solderability test standards for the benefit of an industry facing 
the need to go lead-free. Consequently, and applying due diligence to 
the exercise, our Chairman and the committee felt it would be better 
to carry out a RR test programme examining the alloy, flux, 
temperature, and surface finishes that should be employed and to find 
Gauge R&R for the various methods used in the test.

This was a far better programme of work than the seemingly arbitrary 
International Standard from IEC - and I am the leader of that!

The testing extended to over 30,000 tests conducted at 6 different 
sites and statistically examined by the Guru Bill Russell (he's 
fluent in Swahili by the way!) No-one got paid for this, it was done 
for the benefit of the industry.

As regards the fluxes, SMNA and Actiec 2 and 5 have been proprietary 
grade materials and are my formulations when I bought the Multicore 
SPCID business from Henkel in 2002. IPC wanted to have access to 
these fluxes from other sources.

The flux for tin/lead solderability tests shall be a standard 
activated rosin flux #1 having a composition of 25% ± 0.5% by weight 
of colophony and 0.15% ± 0.01% by weight diethylammonium 
hydrochloride (CAS 660-68-4), in 74.85% ± 0.5% by weight of isopropyl 
alcohol. This is my Actiec 2

The flux for lead-free solderability tests shall be standard 
activated rosin flux #2 having a composition of  25% ± 0.5% by weight 
of colophony and 0.39% ± 0.01% by weight diethylammonium 
hydrochloride (CAS 660-68-4), in 74.61% ± 0.5% by weight of isopropyl 
alcohol. This is my Actiec 5

Keep in mind that the flux should be fresh for every test batch.

Can you use solderability testing to monitor your process - yes. Use 
the alloy, flux, temperature and surface finish on your process line 
and go right ahead. Just don't expect to control your suppliers that 
way as you will get false positives and false negatives.

I hope this helps and please, Richard, ease off on us folks who give 
out time free of charge to helping you all make better quality products.

Kindest regards
Graham Naisbitt

[log in to unmask]

www.gen3systems.com

Phone: +44 (0)12 5252 1500
Mobile: +44 (0) 79 6858 2121


---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
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 
847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

Gen3 Systems Limited
Unit B2, Armstrong Mall
Southwood Business Park
Farnborough Hampshire
GU14 0NR - UK

ENGINEERING RELIABILITY
IN ELECTRONICS

Registered Number: 4639449 (England & Wales). Registered Office as 
above.
DISCLAIMER : This message is intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain 
information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or exempt 
from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended 
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the 
intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, 
distributing, copying, or in any way using this message. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender and 
destroy and delete any copies you may have received. Any views or 
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
might not represent those of Gen3 Systems Limited. Although Gen3 
Systems Limited has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses 
present in this email, Gen3 Systems Limited can not accept the 
responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this 
email or attachments.




On 31 Oct 2007, at 18:48, Guy Ramsey wrote:

> In truth, it is my understanding that the flux was changed because 
> nobody
> uses pure rosin flux anymore. They only reason the flux makers 
> produced it
> was for solderability testing.
>
> The new flux specification was supposed to reflect real world 
> performance
> requirements. We are using an L0 flux. But, I am sure it performs much
> better, in the real world than the material specified in  previous 
> revision
> of the standard; False calls.
>
> Though, I suspect that someone using pure rosin flux could have 
> issues with
> components that pass the current tests.
>
> Dave?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dennis Fritz
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Flux
>
>
> Guys,
>
> I am vice chairman of the 5-23b committee on solderability with Dave
> Hillman as the chairman.  I do not officially remember why this was
> changed, but it was for a reason - not willy-nilly.  My suggestions 
> are
> either:
> 1. Because of some change in the J-004 standard on flux, or 2. The 
> changed
> flux reduced the chance of false calls in the test.
>
> I have a reinforcing note to Dave Hillman to get you an answer.  And,
> please review the information still carried on the committee web site:
>
> _http://members.ipc.org/commReg/CommRegFile.asp? 
> PDFTYPE=min&ComName=Componen
> t%
> 20and%20Wire%20Solderability%20Specification%20T.G&comm=5-23B_
> (http://members.ipc.org/commReg/CommRegFile.asp? 
> PDFTYPE=min&ComName=Componen
> t%20and%20Wire%20
> Solderability%20Specification%20T.G&comm=5-23B)
>
> From a quick scan, I don't see where this change is called out in the
> minutes.  Again, you can review most any of the IPC committtee 
> work, by
> going as
> follows:
>
> 1.  IPC Web page
> 2.  Standards (that is under the Knowledge header) 3. Standards 
> Development
> 4. Committee Home pages 5. Then, you have to be somewhat familiar 
> with the
> IPC committee structure to know where to search.  Assembly 
> standards tend to
> all be under committee 5-20 Assembly and Joining.  J-002 is under 
> Committee
> 5-23B.
> 6. Try it and you will like it (Dr. Suess).
>
> Denny Fritz
> MacDermid, Inc.
>
>
> In a message dated 10/31/2007 1:32:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> New  consensus . . . Who sits on these committees?
>
> -----Original  Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sue  Powers- 
> Hartman
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:36 PM
> To:  [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] Flux
>
> The new JStd-002B 3.2.2 states  that ROL1 flux shall be used for
> solderability testing, while the old Rev  JStd-002A 3.2.2 calls out 
> ROL0
> Flux.  Does anyone know why this was  changed?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's new at http:// 
> www.aol.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0 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 
> 847-615-7100
> ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
> 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 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
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 
847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
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 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2