Sorry, the owners of the info has asked me not to divulge it at this
time. They have been following this thread and wish to study the
situation further before making a definitive decision, possibly with IP
in mind.
Brian
On 01/02/2012 17:35, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Ahhhh, I wondered why you were being cagey. Now tis clear.
>
> Doug Pauls
>
>
>
> From: Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
> Date: 02/01/2012 08:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Yes, it has a CAS no. I'm not sure that I'm at liberty to divulge it at
> the moment as I was mandated to research it and he who pays the piper
> calls the tune, even though I don't have a formal NDA. I'll consult they
> who commissioned me to get formal permission. In the meantime, no more
> guesswork, please; I'll not answer yea or nay to further guesses.
>
> Brian
>
> On 01/02/2012 15:51, Douglas Pauls wrote:
> > Brian, does this mystery material have a CAS number? Or has the Hillman
> > virus latched on to you and this is now the weekly Compound Quiz?
> >
> > Doug Pauls
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Brian Ellis<[log in to unmask]>
> > To:<[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: 02/01/2012 04:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration
> > Sent by: TechNet<[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >
> >
> > No N, no F, Cl, Br, I, At, Just C, H& O. Non-flammable, combustible,
> > FP>50�C! Solubilises rosin quite easily. Mixes with H2O in all
> > proportions. Does not attack constructional materials, including UPVC,
> > PP, PTFE, mixed bed DI resins (causes shrinkage of latter, the same as
> > IPA). Downside: causes stress cracking in PS, PMMA; dissolves
> > rosin-based tape adhesive, cannot use density to determine % in water.
> > Available in high purity. Cost:>IPA<Pure EtOH in most countries.
> >
> > 'Nuff said!
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > On 01/02/2012 04:17, Bev Christian wrote:
> >> Brian,
> >> A non-flammable ether? Hmm. You have stirred my curiosity.
> > Non-flammable because of high molecular weight? Nitrogen groups on the
> > ends? Hopefully not halogens?
> >> Bev
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:52 AM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration
> >>
> >> Je ne comprends pas!
> >>
> >> Pure water has equal numbers of hydroxyl and hydronium ions at all
> >> temperatures. The exponent of the ion concentration falls from about 15
> >> at 0�C to 12 at 100�C (approximations). IOW, the warmer the water the
> >> lower the ionic concentration. I don't think this is important for the
> >> solubilisation of minute quantities of contaminants which will mostly
> >> dissolve better at higher temperatures because of molecular effects
> >> (there are some exceptions). The IPA plays almost no role in the ionic
> >> dissolution process as it is very weakly ionic compared with water. Its
> >> only purpose is to dissolve rosin in the flux so as to release
> >> encapsulated ionic materials. The more IPA in the solution, ionic
> >> contamination testing becomes less sensitive. If there were no
> >> alcohol-soluble/water insoluble components in the contaminant porridge,
> >> then such testing would achieve maximum sensitivity with 0% IPA. This is
> >> why the UK and some other defence standards specify 50% IPA and not 75%;
> >> it doubles the sensitivity of the test as there is double the quantity
> >> of water, which is all that counts. The 75% was originally chosen by
> >> Hobson et al. because the original test in MIL-P-28809 employed wetting
> >> the PCB from a wash bottle and collecting the drippings, typically in
> >> less than a minute, so they needed something that dissolved RMA residues
> >> as rapidly as possible. IMO, it was, and still is, a big mistake to
> >> perpetuate the 75% IPA solution with instruments where the circuit is
> >> immersed, because of saturation of heavy metal salts. If I were to write
> >> a spec today from scratch, I would not even specify IPA but rather a
> >> non-flammable ether at 25% or 33.3%, giving 3-4 times the sensitivity of
> >> the test. I did extensive research of this idea in the mid-1990s and had
> >> very positive results. The problem was IPA was firmly entrenched and it
> >> seemed no one wanted to change the existing specs. I still have some of
> >> my lab notes dating from April/May 1996.
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >> On 31/01/2012 13:44, Joyce Koo wrote:
> >>> Maximum dissociation of oh vs h3o vs vapor pressure If I am not
> > mistaken.
> >>> --------------------------
> >>> Sent using BlackBerry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 06:34 AM
> >>> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum<[log in to unmask]>; Joyce Koo
> >>> Subject: Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration
> >>>
> >>> What is a "sweet spot"?
> >>>
> >>> Brian
> >>>
> >>> On 31/01/2012 13:22, Joyce Koo wrote:
> >>>> Correct me if I am wrong, 45-55C is a sweet spot for water. Add
> > IPA,it is a different story. Graham, can you kindly let me know what is
> > it? Many thx.(from 50% - 75% IPA).
> >>>> --------------------------
> >>>> Sent using BlackBerry
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: PIRES Fabrice [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 06:05 AM
> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration
> >>>>
> >>>> Graham,
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree that the main objective of ROSE measurements should be
> > assembly control (even for no-clean processes) and not process
> > qualification, that SIR is the right method for process risk assessment
> > and then process qualification, and that ion chromatography (IC) gives
> > much more information than ionic contamination about contamination nature
> > and then associated risks.
> >>>>
> >>>> But these 2 techniques (SIR and IC) have as main inconveniency they
> > cannot be used on every day base contrary to ionic contamination in
> > addition of their higher cost. So ionic contamination IMHO keeps
> > interesting for every day controls provided SIR test have been performed
> > previously to qualify the assembly process.
> >>>>
> >>>> About HOT ROSE, the first question is what would be the max T?C to
> > avoid side effect according to you ? 30, 40 or 45C ? Moreover even with
> > some flame retardant leaching, the most important for assembly control
> > should be to perform ROSE measurements always the same (so with same and
> > reasonnable leaching).
> >>>> At last I suppose HOT ROSE also means better temperature control
> > whatever the workshop temperature and quantity of measurements (lots of
> > measurements induces increase of solution T?C due to pump heating ). So
> > HOT ROSE should allow to perform ROSE measurements in more controlled
> > temperature (even if it is a at moderate T?C), which is IMO very
> > important factor for measurement repeatability.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fabrice
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Message d'origine-----
> >>>> De?: Graham Naisbitt [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >>>> Envoy?: lundi 30 janvier 2012 19:05
> >>>> ?: TechNet E-Mail Forum; PIRES Fabrice
> >>>> Objet?: Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration
> >>>>
> >>>> Fabrice
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you hope to measure by this technique?
> >>>>
> >>>> There are just as many non-ionic contaminants in a no-clean process
> > that will not be detected by this technique. It should ONLY be used to
> > control the assembly process.
> >>>>
> >>>> SIR testing is non-discriminating between ionic and non-ionic species,
> > it simply looks for resistance changes. IF you find a problem with
> > SIR,then use Ion Chromatography or FTIR to establish what is there
> causing
> > an SIR problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> HOT ROSE testing will, IMHO, give you a lot of cause for concern
> > without a clear understanding of whether it means anything to the end
> > productservice reliability. It might also burn-down your facility, but
> > that's adifferent issue. :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> No-clean ROSE testing maybe requires another route.which is what we
> > are working on.
> >>>>
> >>>> Graham Naisbitt
> >>>>
> >>>> On 30 Jan 2012, at 13:47, PIRES Fabrice wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As temperature is important for the contamination measurements it
> > seems highly recommandable to perform the measurements at constant T?C
> > and for that reason temperature-controlled equipment should appear as an
> > interesting solution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Heated solution should be also particurlarly interesting for ionic
> > contamination measurements on no-clean PCA for those performing such
> > measurements or on some dirty PCAs. As no-clean or some dirty PCA
> induce a
> > lotmore residues comparatively to cleaned PCA and requires usually much
> > longer measuring time. It could be more than 1 or even 2 hours for
> > asymptote. Higher temperatures (up to 45?C to limit solution
> > evaporationor other side effects) allow to reduce significantly this
> > duration to more industrially acceptable values.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So if heated solution should be used with precaution as previously
> > noted it can also offer some advantages.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> fabrice
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
> >>>>> De : TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de Graham Naisbitt
> >>>>> Envoy? : lundi 30 janvier 2012 13:21
> >>>>> ? : [log in to unmask]
> >>>>> Objet : Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hello Techies
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The equipment Brian refers to is Contaminometer - and they are
> > stillmade, by me. Sorry for the advert but.everyone keeps talking
> about my
> > competitors.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, as regards the issue of test time, keep-in-mind that some
> > folk recommend testing with heated solution, and temperature has a
> > significant effect in the measurement technique. Some systems also suffer
> > from excess temperature deviation during the test cycle and it does
> make a
> > difference to your results - false positives and/or false negatives are
> > undesirable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hot or warm solution has been shown to increase the risk of
> > leachingthe flame retardant (Bromine) out of the laminate, through the
> > mask and onto the board surface. (IVF, Sweden circa 1992)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Instruments should provide compensation for both temperature and
> > CO2effects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given that Rigo is working at NASA, I thought this info might be
> > important.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This test method is great for controlling your assembly process. It's
> > is NOT safe to assume that tested assemblies yielding results
> > of<1,5microgrammes of NaCl equivalence are good because it implies
> that it
> > is safeto leave UP TO 1.5 micro grammes of salt on every square
> centimetre
> > of your assembly.maybe, maybe not...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hope this helps - see you in San Diego?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Graham Naisbitt
> >>>>> Gen3 Systems
> >>>>> www.gen3 systems.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 26 Jan 2012, at 18:12, Brian Ellis wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, it depends! In the instruments I used to make, they measured to
> > within 1% of estimated asymptote or 15 min, whichever was the shorter. By
> > curve fitting, the software extrapolated to asymptote and then analysed
> > the 2 or 3 major components that made up the total curve (e.g. if
> therewas
> > a component due to activators in a rosin matrix, this would
> > dissolveslowly, while salt from fingerprints would dissolve rapidly),
> thus
> > determining the ug/cm? eq. NaCl for each type of contaminant and the
> > printout gave a list of possible contaminants creating each component
> > curve shape. Effectively, although it was limited to 15 min actual
> > measurement, some contaminants (e.g. substrate leaching) took hours or
> > days to asymptote and this was indicated. Of course, to have a test that
> > long would be impossible, because CO2 absorption (which was compensated
> > for in these instruments) would be greater than the dissolved leachates
> > and the accuracy would be lower than a real 15 min test!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Brian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 26/01/2012 18:46, Stadem, Richard D. wrote:
> >>>>>>> The minimum time is ten minutes. Read all about this in
> > IPC-HDBK-001 section 8.3.6 and 8.3.7.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Garcia, Rigo
> > (GSFC-300.0)[MANTECH SRS TECHNOLOGIES]
> >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:16 AM
> >>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>>> Subject: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi everybody!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have looked at several document but can't find the answer. This
> > should be an easy one for my TechNet buddies though.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Does anybody know what the typical duration for the ROSE Test is?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rigo Garcia
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sr. Quality Assurance Engineer
> >>>>>>> Workmanship Standards, Code 300
> >>>>>>> NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center
> >>>>>>> Greenbelt, MD 20771
> >>>>>>> Phone. (301) 286-6129
> >>>>>>> Fax. (301) 286-6576
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
|