TECHNET Archives

May 2013

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:
Ed Popielarski <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Ed Popielarski <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 8 May 2013 16:09:40 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
I wasn't on distribution for that one. LOL

Ed Popielarski
Engineering Manager


                               970 NE 21st Ct.
                              Oak Harbor, Wa. 98277

                              Ph: 360-675-1322
                              Fx: 206-624-0965
                              Cl: 949-581-6601

https://maps.google.com/maps/myplaces?hl=en&ll=48.315753,-122.643578&spn=0.011188,0.033023&ctz=420&t=m&z=16&iwloc=A


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 9:08 AM
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Ed Popielarski
Subject: Re: [TN] Flux classification question

Ed,

Wasn't that the time that they wanted to change the name of malic acid to malific acid?

Brian

On 08.05.2013 18:38, Ed Popielarski wrote:
> I had some involvement with this Hughes project. It was licensed and marketed by Kester under P/N HF1189 (November, 1989) later to be revised HF1189A (apple juice). HF1189 is still available in pen dispense media. I do recall a tremendous crystalline buildup under the conveyor rails over the solder nozzle which was insoluble in H2O or IPA, but dissolved quite nicely in household ammonia. I assume this was some sort of metallic salt. The boards were left with a haze around the solder joints which also had the same solubility characteristics. I recall the engineer involved along with his red-headed side-kick, but will refrain from mentioning them to protect the innocent.
>
> IMHO, the whole thing was a "publicity stunt" engineered to distract 
> the public eye from other issues looming at the time, but hey, what do 
> I know?! <wink>
>
> Ed Popielarski
> Engineering Manager
>
>
>                                 970 NE 21st Ct.
>                                Oak Harbor, Wa. 98277
>
>                                Ph: 360-675-1322
>                                Fx: 206-624-0965
>                                Cl: 949-581-6601
>
> https://maps.google.com/maps/myplaces?hl=en&ll=48.315753,-122.643578&s
> pn=0.011188,0.033023&ctz=420&t=m&z=16&iwloc=A
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Fenner
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 8:13 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Flux classification question
>
> Hello Brian
> I waited before answering....
> Your brainbox might not be going all the way to peak revs but it's on all cylinders, so you are right - as usual :) I have a less secure memory of a new wonder flux brought out by Hughes [as then was] based on citric which was wonderful in tests but in practice had shortcomings. This would be early/mid 90s? It was taken up under licence by an established flux supplier but quickly dropped. I also remember a critique, I think on this forum so it had to be by you, explaining why it was no good. Something to do with double bonds and insolubility.
> So far as Zeva was concerned their machines were a triumph of good German engineering over bad operating principal (they had no choice because of patents), but so far as I recall the only reason for buying their fluxes was because they were part of a package. They were good for engineers to come up with, but were relatively easy for a specialist materials supplier to displace. I should have said:
> .... Citric acid  ... has a place on the scale, but is not much used in fluxes THESE DAYS.
>
> Best Wishes
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:12 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Flux classification question
>
> If my aged brainbox is right, ZEVA in Germany made a flux with citric acid activator for their drag soldering machines, going back 40-50 years. It is interesting as being a common tricarboxylic acid, therefore quite a powerful reducing agent. It is also quite a good chelating agent, so can "capture" difficult-to-dissolve heavy metal salts, including both lead and tin ones, so it has a double-whammy effect. It works best as an additive (say 20-30%) to conventional dicarboxylic acid (e.g. adipic), rather than by itself.
>
> Brian
>
> On 08.05.2013 14:57, Mike Fenner wrote:
>> HI
>> The difficulty of explaining chemistry to non chemists is not to over 
>> explain it. This just confuses. I usually talk of strong and weak 
>> acids, weak being natural acids - those found in life usually with 
>> quite big formulas, and strong or mineral acids which are usually quite simple.
> Using
>> a scale (logarithmic) to illustrate where on the scale these things 
>> go and where fluxes would be. Also add in things from daily life 
>> which people are familiar with Fruit juices, vinegar, cola.
>> Citric acid is naturally found in citrus fruits - oranges lemons - 
>> has a place on the scale, but is not much used in fluxes, it can have 
>> wash off problems.
>>
>> Best Wishes
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sue Powers-Hartman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:21 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: RE: [TN] Flux classification question
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I like what you wrote.  While teaching J-Std001 class, I try to 
>> define the different Fluxes.  Would you further define organic and inorganic?
>> It is difficult to find what they are made of, tho I have been told 
>> that organic fluxes are citrus based.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> Sue Powers-Hartman
>> Certified IPC Trainer: J-STD-001E, J-STD-001ES, IPC-A 600H, 
>> IPC-A-610E, IPC/WHMA-A-620A, IPC 7711-7721B, Killdeer Mountain 
>> Manufacturing
>> 233 Rodeo Drive
>> Killdeer ND    58640
>> 701-764-5651 ext 128
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Fenner
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:45 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [TN] Flux classification question
>>
>> The term "Resin" describes a group of chemicals which includes 
>> natural materials such as shellac from beetles and synthetic 
>> materials such as epoxies. The natural material we are most familiar 
>> with in soldering is rosin - aka colophony - which is extracted from 
>> pine trees in much the
> same
>> way as rubber is tapped. Some of the first soldering fluxes were made 
>> from rosin which has nearly all the attributes needed for electronic soldering.
>> It does not have quite the oxide removal properties to be totally 
>> satisfactory and so more active chemicals are blended with it, these 
>> are known as activators. The amount and type added is controlled to 
>> avoid too much activity which can lead to corrosion. This gave us the 
>> old style R (pure rosin) RMA (mildly activated and RA (fully activated) designations.
>> You can tell the military was involved in these because mildly 
>> activated rosin would more naturally be abbreviated MAR rather than RMA. :) .
>> These old style specs were based on composition, basically they said 
>> if
> you
>> use these materials in these proportions and they meet compositional 
>> tests (e.g. less than a certain amount of activator or leachable acid 
>> then they were considered safe. In other words pragmatic based on a 
>> few decades of finding out what worked and what didn't.
>> Modern no clean technology requires more than just chemical and 
>> electrical properties, clear light residues for example and these are 
>> more easily met by using other resins. If you look at current 
>> specifications you will see that the no clean classification is the 
>> same for rosin or resin containing materials. Whether or not a flux 
>> meets modern specs is not so much
> concerned
>> with what is in the flux as supplied, but what the residues do after
> reflow.
>> So the test criteria are surface insulation resistance (SIR) of 
>> reflowed test pieces and so on. The post solder tests for no cleans 
>> were based on
> how
>> RMA fluxes behaved. The RE and RO in flux designations is really now 
>> for information only and help provide continuity from the previous 
>> spec regime and flux types to the ones we use now. [Also for those 
>> still doing legacy work for those requiring MIL spec fluxes.] This 
>> explanation is somewhat oversimplified for clarity. Hope it helps.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mike Fenner
>> Bonding Services & Products
>> M: +44 [0] 7810 526 317
>> T: +44 [0] 1865 522 663
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Graham Collins
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:13 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [TN] Flux classification question
>>
>> Flux gurus, can you tell me the difference between ROLO and RELO fluxes?
>>
>> (Dewey, I know - the second letter is different, that isn't helpful!)
>>
>> Is a RELO more active or less?  Or does the E mean something else?
>>
>> --
>> regards,
>>
>> Graham Collins
>> Senior Process Engineer
>> Sunsel Systems
>> (902) 444-7867 ext 211
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _ 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] 
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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