TECHNET Archives

April 2012

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:
Julie Silk <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Julie Silk <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:37:15 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (6 lines)
I agree with the majority of the group that no-clean liquid flux that has not been deactivated is a reliability issue.  It remains conductive, and is tacky enough to collect debris and dust to make an additional conductive path.  It's a poor practice to use liquid flux for hand-rework, and yet seems prevalent.  

Since I intensely dislike spot-cleaning operations (too variable, operator-dependent, spreads gunk in a broader area and under parts), I prefer to ban liquid flux use in rework in settings where an automated cleaning process is not available.  Even a single drop applicator gives enough flux to spread into regions that will not be heated by a soldering iron.  I have never seen an operator wait a couple of minutes after fluxing before going in to solder, either.  The flux pen is the best bet, and yet I've seen it swiped liberally all over the region to be soldered and not just the local area.  

I think the IPC 610 10.6.4 standard that was referenced is inadequate (one of the few places where Agilent disagrees with IPC and our internal standards are tighter).  It sounds like wet, tacky or excessive flux residues are only a defect when they may spread onto other surfaces.  Wet and tacky residues -- or ones that were tacky enough to exhibit fingerprints (!) -- are unacceptable.  Period.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2