TECHNET Archives

May 2014

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:
Joe Russeau <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Date:
Wed, 28 May 2014 08:46:05 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (268 lines)
Bev,

I agree with you.  Perhaps it would be worth adding that understanding the 
proper application and limitation(s) of a technique is important.  Far too 
often, I work with people that have tried to apply the wrong test to solve 
their issues only to end up discouraged and frustrated that they aren't any 
closer to an answer than when they started.  I have seen some spend months 
chasing a problem because of applying the wrong analytical technique and not 
understanding the data it was giving them.  You have got to understand the 
tool and its uses.

Best Regards,

Joe Russeau


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bev Christian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: [TN] PCB Cleanliness Via Ion Chromatography Poll (informal)


> Well, I guess I have decided to wade in as well - with respect to using 
> FTIR
> (Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy).  Basically one is allowing
> infrared light of different frequencies to interact with the changing 
> dipole
> moment as covalent bonds vibrate at infrared frequencies.
>
> Let's first look at what this means for ionic solutions.  Salts with 
> cations
> like sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium and anions like fluoride,
> chloride and bromide are going to be completely disassociated in the water
> and there will be no IR spectrum due to these salts. They are completely
> ionic entities and there are no covalent bonds.
>
> What about sodium nitrate and sodium sulfate? Again the salts 
> disassociate,
> but in this case the anions are multi-atom entities that stay together 
> (NO3-
> and SO4-2).  Nitrate has four vibrations around 1040, 820, 1440 and 700 
> wave
> numbers. I say "around", as the book I have only shows the values for the
> solid salts and the values vary from salt to salt.  In solution only the
> latter three vibrations are active in the infrared.  Many spectrometers 
> use
> NaCl cells and optics with the cutoff being 625 wave numbers, so for the
> band at 700 it may be buried in the decreasing transparency as one
> approaches 625 cm-1.  This doesn't give one a lot to work with.  If it is
> mixed with organic molecules, which have a messy "fingerprint" region
> (usually defined as below 1500 wave numbers), then hand me the aspirin.
>
> Multi-atom ions will have more active bands in solids because of crystal
> effects splitting bands and making those active which are normally not
> infrared active in the free gas or liquid phase.  However, this also can 
> be
> said for the other materials the salts may be mixed with.  What a mess.
>
> FTIR is NOT the technique to be looking for inorganic salts.
>
> Now if one is looking for a common flux residue, coffee, 
> Coke/Pepsi/Mountain
> Dew, yes, we can tell the difference.  :)
>
> Regards,
> Bev
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joe Russeau
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] PCB Cleanliness Via Ion Chromatography Poll (informal)
>
> Graham, Graham, Graham,
>
> I about choked on my afternoon tea when I read your post.  I must disagree
> with you that IC is an unsuitable tool.  In fact, I would say it is highly
> suitable for evaluating bare board cleanliness.  And the items you point 
> out
>
> about bromide and false positives or false negatives are not necessarily a
> function of the tool, but perhaps more from improper use or inexperience
> using the tool or in understanding what it is that is being evaluated. 
> The
> gist of Rich's question (I think) is regarding what the industry experts
> consider as an appropriate metric for evaluating IC test results.  Rich
> correct me if I am wrong on that.
>
> To add my 2 cents, I have said for many years now that there is no
> one-size-fits-all to this question.  Documents like IPC-5704 provide a
> general guideline for the evaluation of IC data on bare boards, but you 
> have
>
> to answer the question of how applicable that criteria is for your
> product(s).  If you have no clue of where to begin, then 5704 provides a
> remedial starting point.  As you begin to gather data, take the time to 
> log
> it and evaluate it.  Hopefully, you are pulling data across multiple 
> product
>
> designs.  I tell clients all the time that every board has its own 
> threshold
>
> for how much residue it can tolerate.  So if you are only evaluating one
> board type, you can set a misleading standard for your other products.
>
> Case in point, I had a client a couple of years back that had set an IC
> standard so low that none of their products could meet it.  When asked how
> they developed the standard, they told me that their competitor down the
> road used the same standard and they knew if their competitor could meet 
> it,
>
> so could they.  They neglected to take into account the material and 
> process
>
> differences they used compared to their competitor AND they never thought 
> to
>
> factor in their board supplier's process.  They went off assumptions.  We
> still do that in industry even today and make assumptions about what we
> think we know.  In my world, data is king.  So I would suggest that you
> test, re-test and test some more and look across multiple product lines. 
> I
> would look at different board laminates and different surface finishes and
> would tabulate the data that I collect.  Over time you should begin to see
> what the "typical" cleanliness picture is for your boards and then you 
> will
> have a standard that is relevant to you.  Until then, I would recommend
> consulting the experts and utilize IPC documents as they are suppose to be
> derived from a consensus of industry experts that have knowledge and
> experience in a given area or discipline.
>
> My 2 pennies.
>
> Joe Russeau
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Graham Naisbitt" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [TN] PCB Cleanliness Via Ion Chromatography Poll (informal)
>
>
> Hi Richard
>
> I was going to respond sooner but, being equally interested in the 
> response,
>
> thought I would wait to see what was said.
>
> IMHO this is not a suitable test.
>
> My reasoning being that the test is run by washing / "de-ionising" the
> eluent until it squeaks. Then heating it to 80DegC, and immersing the
> specimen / sample into the eluent for 1 hour.
>
> Problem? The laminate closely resembles a sponge, it is hydrophilic and
> contains more ions than you could shake a stick at.
>
> Result? False negatives?
>
> Why? Br could well be leached out through the mask onto the surface..but 
> Br
> is a requirement.
>
> I have had several board fabricators asking for assistance on this matter 
> as
>
> they are struggling to get anything to pass... my answer has been: Use SIR
> sir.
>
> It does not discriminate between ionic and non-ionic contamination, it
> simply examines changes to insulation resistance that might be pre-cursors
> of unwanted electro-chemical activity.
>
> Use IC when you need to know what is present that is causing the 
> problem..or
>
> use FTIR?
>
> Use Process Ionic Contamination Testing (PICT) to control the process. 
> Fast,
>
> simple, relatively inexpensive and effective.
>
> Always at your service,
>
> BR Graham Naisbitt
>
>
> On 23 May 2014, at 14:27, Richard Kraszewski 
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
> wrote:
>
>> I actually sent this out on May  16th, but never got a single response.
>> Hoping that was not due to lack of interest, but rather due to the 
>> TechNet
>
>> being down. Hence, I think I'll try this one more time.
>>
>> I am  hoping to run an informal " min straw poll " here.
>>
>> Questions stated  are as follows:
>>
>>
>> 1.       "Is your organization testing  incoming  PCB cleanliness  via
>> ion- chromatography?             Replies such as "YES" or "NO" will
>> suffice, but more detailed explanations are also acceptable.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.       " If testing via IC, do you use IPC -5704 Table 4.1 limits or
>> other?                                                Replies such as "
>> IPC"  or "other"  will suffice, but more detailed explanations are also
>> acceptable.
>>
>> What's in  it for  you?   I will summarize and post the results after a
>> few days of replies.
>>
>> Rich  Kraszewski
>> Senior Process Engineer
>> Plexus
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> 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 is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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 is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com


______________________________________________________________________
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