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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
|
