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:
"Stadem, Richard D." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Stadem, Richard D.
Date:
Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:12:04 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (14 lines)
Absolutely in agreement. 
________________________________________
From: TechNet [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julie Silk [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] 4 Questions: No Clean vs flux Deactivation. Possible Hogwash ???

I don't know the exact products.  Any no-clean flux that comes in a bottle, used with a needle tip.  I hate when I see those at a no-clean rework station!  Many years ago, a company that we purchased had a contract manufacturer that was happily using no-clean flux intended for a wave solder in this way for hand-soldering.  Hey, it's no-clean, right?  But had puddles of tacky white gunk in the hand-solder or rework locations.  We had a massive cleaning effort ahead of us.  It's no-clean only after the mild acids are deactivated with heat.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2