TECHNET Archives

June 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:
Bev Christian <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Bev Christian <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:04:09 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (71 lines)
Rigo,
The way these two test methods are written they could use either. However,
when I read them, it "appears" that 2.6.3 is more for bare boards and
conformal coatings and 2.6.3.7 is more for "fabrication, process or handling
residues" and the body of the text for 2.6.3.7 does mention fluxes in
particular. Some differences:

		2.6.3		2.6.3.7
Published	2004		2007
Temp		65		40
%RH		85		90
V		100		25V/mm

2.6.3 mentions three classes (1, 2 & 3) - measure before and after for 4
days, 7 days, cycle for 160 hours, respectively.
2.6.3.7 says test at least 72 hours and measure every 20 minutes.

Certainly 2.3.6.7 is more detailed.

I believe there is a recent paper by a young fellow from Indium where he
states that one is better for testing rosin fluxes and the other is better
for testing non-rosin fluxes.  I have the paper on my desk at work. I am
copying my work to try and remember to get you the reference.

So why did they pick 2.6.3?  My guesses:
1) It is what they are used to.
2) The lack of detail gives them a lot more leeway in how they set up their
test.

Bev


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Garcia, Rigo
(GSFC-300.0)[ARES CORP]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 3:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] SIR Testing - IPC-TM-650 - 2.6.3 vs 2.6.3.7

Hi everybody,

I am reviewing a proposal for a new solvent from a supplier. When reviewing
their qualification package I noted they tested the IPC-B-52 coupons to the
2.6.3 Test Method "Moisture and Insulation Resistance, Printed Boards"
instead of the obvious 2.6.3.7 Test Method "Surface Insulation Resistance".

Does anybody have any idea why they would've want to do this? Is 2.6.3.7
more stringent?

Thanks for the help!

Rigo Garcia

Sr. Quality Engineer
NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center
Workmanship Standards, Code 300
Phone. (301) 286-6129
Fax.     (301) 286-6576


______________________________________________________________________
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] 
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
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