TECHNET Archives

August 2016

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:
Graham Naisbitt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Graham Naisbitt <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:05:59 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
Hi Bev and Stuart and all Techies,

I guess I need to elaborate on the reason for my earlier question.

I am engaged, with many others, on a project with both IPC and IEC to consider a protocol for characterising and controlling an electronics assembly process.

As it stands today, we have both CAF (2.6.25) and SIR (2.6.3.7) testing that can be used to characterise a material set. The beauty of SIR is that it can be used as a predictor of electro-chemical reliability, but it cannot tell you what is present causing any problems so….

…You could employ Ion Chromatography (2.3.28) that would be able to inform what is present that might be causing a problem identified in SIR tests.

Alternatively or in addition, the user could use FTIR (2.3.39C - which, as Bev points out, has been cancelled) for the same determination.

In essence, IC and/or FTIR can tell the user what is present causing a problem but neither test can determine if the intended end-product might be electro-chemically reliable. Contrariwise, that is the role of SIR.
 
Once this examination has been completed and the user is satisfied that they have reasonable evidence of electro-chemical reliability for the intended end-product, they would use Process Ionic Contamination Testing (PICT) to monitor their process in respect to ionic contamination. This was the original intention of what today has become known as ROSE testing. The significant problem that exists today is that the industry believes this to be a “Cleanliness Test” which it, most certainly, is not.

Have I missed some other test that could be used in place of, or supplementary to, IC / FTIR?

Graham Naisbitt

> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:08, Bev Christian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Graham
> 2.3.39C CANCELLED.  This is the only one that I am familiar with.  What is
> your problem/issue you are trying to solve?
> Regards,
> Bev
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Graham Naisbitt
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 11:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] FTIR
> 
> Hello fellow Techies,
> 
> Do any of you know if there is a test method in IPC for FTIR?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Graham Naisbitt

ATOM RSS1 RSS2