Schrodinger's?
Dewey
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Inge Hernefjord
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] APEX Papers on Conformal coat and tin whiskers
I am glad the whiskers in my nose isn't Tin. Imagine they grow and grow, and one day you look like a cat.
Inge
On 18 June 2013 12:00, Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dewey
>
> Is this an e-mail link to a group or something?
>
> Steve C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Whittaker, Dewey
> (EHCOE)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] APEX Papers on Conformal coat and tin whiskers
>
> Also try [log in to unmask]
> Dewey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Landman
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:50 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] APEX Papers on Conformal coat and tin whiskers
>
> John Barnes is the person collecting the bibliography (> 20,000
> citations)
>
> * Bibliography for Tin Whiskers, Zinc Whiskers, Cadmium Whiskers, and
> Other Conductive Metal Whiskers
> http://www.dbicorporation.com/whiskbib.htm
>
> Bob Landman
>
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 5:52 AM, Steven Creswick
> <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Inge,
> >
> > Sorry, but was not me. I can imagine there being a great deal of
> > non-published work out there, however.
> >
> > Smooth skies!
> >
> > Steve C
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Inge Hernefjord
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:27 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [TN] APEX Papers on Conformal coat and tin whiskers
> >
> > FYI
> >
> > Someone (Trikeman?) told me that about 10,000 papers exist about
> whiskers.
> > Of course most of them are echoes.
> >
> > Inge
> >
> >
> > On 12 June 2013 07:26, greg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> There have been several papers published at APEX on the topic. But
> >> whether they address the specific issues raised today I leave to
> >> wiser heads than mine.
> >>
> >> APEX 2007:
> >>
> >> Effect of Conformal Coating on Tin Whisker Growth, Vijay Kumar and
> >> Linda Woody, Lockheed Martin
> >>
> >> Parylene as a Suppressant for Tin Whiskers Growth on Printed
> >> Circuit Boards, Rakesh Kumar Specialty Coating Systems
> >>
> >> Whisker Penetration into Conformal Coating, Stephen McKeown, Joseph
> >> Kane, Dr. Stephan Meschter BAE Systems, Johnson City, NY
> >>
> >>
> >> APEX 2008:
> >>
> >> Effects of Tin Mitigation Processes on Whisker Growth and Solder
> >> Joint Reliability for Chip and Small-Outline Package Components,
> >> Tom Lesniewski and Tom Higley, Northrop Grumman Network
> >> Communications, San Diego, CA 92128
> >>
> >> APEX 2010:
> >>
> >> Conformal Coatings for Tin Whisker Risk Management, William Fox and
> >> Linda Woody Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Ocala,
> >> Florida
> >>
> >>
> >> And Chris Hunt did publish also but the APEX papers of his do not
> >> talk about conformal coating. (He may have published somewhere else
> >> on whiskers/coatings. Dave who published on tin coated braided wire
> >> may want to weigh in after he returns.)
> >>
> >> Having done the file search on the above whiskers/coatings APEX
> >> papers and read their summaries the answer to "Does it help?" seems
> >> (to me) to be somewhere between "yes/no/maybe/it depends." (i.e.
> >> it's "above my pay
> >> grade.")
> >>
> >> Greg Munie
> >> IPC Director of Design Programs
> >>
> >>
> >>> -------Original Message-------
> >>> From: Mike Fenner <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Subject: Re: [TN] minimum thickness of Type UR Conformal coat and
> >>> tin
> >> whiskers
> >>> Sent: 12 Jun '13 09:07
> >>>
> >>> Richard, slightly tongue in cheek I ask: How does soldering with
> >> tin/lead
> >>> prevent tin finish on PCB whiskering?
> >>>
> >>> Phil I recall Chris Hunt of NPL in UK did some work on this. You
> >>> can probably download a copy of paper from their WWW.
> >>>
> >>> Best Wishes
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:22 PM
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Subject: Re: [TN] minimum thickness of Type UR Conformal coat and
> >>> tin whiskers
> >>>
> >>> Not only can the whiskers grow through the conformal coating, they
> >>> can
> >> grow
> >>> under it like weeds in a stream. NASA has some good pictures of
> >>> this on their website.
> >>> The best tin whisker mitigation scheme is called tin/lead solder.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Douglas Pauls
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:10 AM
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Subject: Re: [TN] minimum thickness of Type UR Conformal coat and
> >>> tin whiskers
> >>>
> >>> Phil,
> >>> While this is an answer I "should" know, I don't. Dave Hillman
> >> regularly
> >>> attends and presents at the CALCE yearly conference on whiskers
> >>> and so
> >> he
> >>> keeps up on all of that. At present, my esteemed colleague is
> >>> bumping
> >> his
> >>> head on rocks, kayaking upside down, on some white water in North
> >> Carolina.
> >>> He should be back in the office on Monday and will no doubt answer
> > then.
> >>>
> >>> From our discussions, the general rule is still "no conformal
> >>> coating prevents whiskers". A thicker coating may cause the
> >>> whisker to expend
> >> more
> >>> energy punching through and yet more energy to punch through an
> >>> adjacent coating on a lead (usually resulting in buckling), but I
> >>> have yet to
> >> hear
> >>> about some magic thickness of any kind of coating that completely
> >> mitigates
> >>> whiskers. But I could be wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Dave?
> >>>
> >>> Doug Pauls
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Phil Bavaro <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Date: 06/11/2013 02:26 PM
> >>> Subject: [TN] minimum thickness of Type UR Conformal coat and
> > tin
> >>> whiskers
> >>> Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Doug et al,
> >>>
> >>> Is there a disagreement in the industry as to what minimum
> >>> thickness of urethane is required in order to mitigate tin
> >>> whisker
> > concerns?
> >>>
> >>> I am hearing that the .003+/-.002" does not provide enough of a minimum
> >>> thickness and that the number is as high as .004". I can understand
> >>> wanting the minimum being raised to .002" but higher than that
> >>> would
> >> seem to
> >>> make the process much more difficult to control.
> >>>
> >>> I have a potential customer asking if we measure the thickness on
> >>> the individual component leads which is another can of worms it
> >>> seems. We always used flat samples to document our thicknesses.
> >>>
> >>> I did not get to attend this years APEX so I might have missed the
> >> latest
> >>> data.
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> 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]
> >> ___________________________________________________________________
> >> __
> >> _
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > __ 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]
______________________________________________________________________
|