Sorry that my comedic reference was missed and I had not got to your response prior to sending. As expected, it was an excellent. I always said if you cleaned up your act you would go places.
Dewey

________________________________
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 7:55 AM
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)
Subject: Re: [TN] ION CHROMATOGRAPHY - EXCESS CHLORIDE CONTENT

Mr. Pauls was my dad.

Here in Iowa, the Big Bang refers to days when the temperature is over 105 and the fields of popcorn start to go off.

And I already commented Dewey.  Get with the program.  You can only blame the 2 hour time difference so many times.

Doug Pauls



From:        "Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)" <[log in to unmask]>
To:        <[log in to unmask]>
Date:        10/09/2012 09:26 AM
Subject:        Re: [TN] ION CHROMATOGRAPHY - EXCESS CHLORIDE CONTENT
Sent by:        TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
________________________________



Just when you think this is another one of his big bang theories; he's spot on. It's probably the printed boards, but I only do class acts so I'll let others do the corn. I hear the rustling of the stalks in Iowa, so you'll likely being hearing from Mr. Pauls soon.
Dewey

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Graham Naisbitt
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 9:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] ION CHROMATOGRAPHY - EXCESS CHLORIDE CONTENT

Phil and Bev

Not necessarily strange.

Phil, you say you passed ROSE test "of course". What is your pass/fail criteria <1.54microgrammes NaCl? If yes, then no wonder it fails IC.

IC is intended to tell you EXACTLY what is on an assembly surface that might be causing an electro-chemical problem ...that should have been established as a problem from SIR tests.

If it passed SIR tests, then is that "pesky result" really an issue?

As I have maintained:

Use your ROSE test to control your process - not based upon some spurious pass/fail limit.

Then run SIR

If there's a problem, run IC or FTIR or more to find out what the root cause is.

As regards your control coupon failing - Might I presume that there is a solder resist / mask present on the bare board? In most of our test work it is the bare board that harbours the most problems - get that right, and...bazinga!

Graham Naisbitt


On 9 Oct 2012, at 08:09, Bev Christian wrote:

> Phil,
> Very strange.
>
> Has the ROSE tester been calibrated?
> Physically what is different between one test sample and the other two?
> Were all three test samples ROSE tested together or separately?
> Were they shipped together or in separate bags or even in totally separate
> packages?
> How far away is your manufacturing facility from the lab?  Next door? Next
> city? Next state?
> What are you getting for chloride readings for your blanks?
>
> Bev
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Bavaro
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] ION CHROMATOGRAPHY - EXCESS CHLORIDE CONTENT
>
> We have some results that have left me puzzled.  We are processing the
> IPC B-52 test PWAs using water soluble paste/flux and we can pass the
> ROSE test (of course) and the SIR test, but fail the IC test for
> excessive choride anion content.
>
> Here is what baffles me.....our control sample is similar and worse than
> the test samples.
>
> There seems to be some documentation that the chloride ion might be
> related to mishandling and/or soldermask not being properly cured but I
> don't have any experience with this test result so I am not sure how to
> respond to that (hopefully Terry will chime in on this).  We processed
> all the samples using the proper gloves and bags and doubt that we
> contaminated them.
>
> We are trying to meet the requirement of 0.9 micro-gm/cm-cm maximum and
> our failing control sample is 3.36, one test sample is 4.67, and the
> other two samples are running at .91 and .90.  What value for chloride
> anion content does a normal WS process yield? Are these numbers way out
> of range for normal test results or is chloride always a pesky result?
>
> I am looking for the answer to the question "is this really a problem?"
>
> The control sample was washed but did not have any paste applied to it
> at all.  The test samples were run through the full assembly reflow
> process then cleaned and Rose tested before shipment to the lab.
>
> All the rest of the results for the IC test are passing so I don't know
> quite how to proceed from here.
>
> My current plan is to run another set of tests with more than one
> control sample, and then to simulate various phases of clean (IOW barely
> cleaned, half cleaned, and then a couple of fully cleaned samples).  As
> I am not really familiar with IC test results, I want to see the what
> the constituents of the "dirt" really look like from an IC test
> perspective as well as repeat the previous test results.
>
> One item I have noted is that we did not have our chosen board supplier
> build these boards but instead bought these off the shelf from one of
> the dummy component suppliers.  But the thought was that as long as they
> were cleaned using our normal process, they should be acceptable.
> These particular test samples use FR4 and not the high Tg polyimide that
> most of our PWBs are built from.
>
> Any comments on this would be appreciated.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> This message and any attachments are solely for the use of the addressee and
> may contain L-3 proprietary information that may also be defined as USG
> export controlled technical data. If you are not the intended recipient, any
> disclosure, use or distribution of its content is prohibited. Please notify
> the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete this message and any
> attachments.
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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]
> ______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
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] 
______________________________________________________________________