the list is a spin off of IPC TechNet - not much activity due to the plethora of whisker deniers.
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Inge Hernefjord <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
