TECHNET Archives

November 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, 13 Nov 2012 07:49:09 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2 lines)
A discussion of the practice of re-flux and reflow of BGAs to rework them has emerged within the "limits of flux residue" discussion.  I'm taking it out into a separate thread.  This rework process injects flux under the BGA, then reflows the BGA.  The part is not removed.  It will frequently make a part that wasn't working work again.  The heat damage to the board is less (fewer cycles) than a replacement process.  The question Joyce asked about whether there are standards and reliability studies has not been answered.  What is the proper procedure for this rework process?  Are there official standards?  Studies of effectiveness / reliability?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2