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
-----------------------------------------------------
|
