Went on a whale watching trip a few years back. Those straps look rather 
like the ones handed out  to prevent passengers from getting seasick. I 
believe the operating principal is likely to be the same for each 
application making them equally effective.

Mike

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com


--- Original message ---
From: Stadem, Richard D. <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 17 May 2017 15:15:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] IMC Formation Thickness in OSP

> Steve, please don’t bandy that stuff about. If my operators see that 
> they’ll all want some ASAP. Imagine not having those pesky cords that are 
> always knocking over their pop cup on the ESD bench, LOL!
>
> From: Steve Gregory [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:07 AM
> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Stadem, Richard D.
> Subject: Re: [TN] IMC Formation Thickness in OSP
>
> Hey Dean,
> You liked those ROHS compliant foot straps so much, I know you'll just love 
> the wireless wrist straps! At least they're only $4.00.
>
> http://www.batteryspace.com/cordlesswriststrap--staticdissipativewithoutgroundingcord.aspx
> Steve
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Stadem, Richard D. 
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> I could not agree with you more, Dave!
> What a lot of people do not understand also is that IMC formation is 
> self-limiting. Rework temperatures do NOT “double the thickness of the IMC 
> and therefore reduces reliability by half” as one solder company’s PhD 
> stated recently when attempting to sell low-melting –point solder alloys. 
> IMC thickness normally has little effect on reliability.
>
> We in the electronics industry have to constantly beware of hucksters 
> trying to make a buck with “easy” technical solutions, only to find you 
> never get something for nothing, and sometimes you get nothing for 
> something more, such as those green RoHS-compliant ESD footstraps for $49 
> per pair (still laughing and stepping down from soapbox also).
> Odin
>
> From: David Hillman 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:21 AM
> To: Stadem, Richard D.
> Cc: TechNet E-Mail Forum
> Subject: Re: [TN] IMC Formation Thickness in OSP
>
> Hi Dean - good summary! There is currently a soldering iron manufacturer 
> (who shall remain nameless) who is claiming their system manages the solder 
> joint creation making the "ideal" IMC for a reliable joint. I have 
> requested a copy of the data or research conducted on how the "ideal" IMC 
> for solder joint integrity was derived and am still awaiting the 
> information. I think we are causing some unnecessary waste of industry 
> resources  many times with the topic of IMC comes up. Ok, I'll get off my 
> soap box!
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Stadem, Richard D. 
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> 
> wrote:
> Most IMC failures are actually design issues related to delta CTEs between 
> components and substrates, and to varying degrees. I respect the challenge 
> you have of summarizing the perfect storm of these design issues, alloy 
> factors (including nucleation and brittleness), aging, and incorrect or 
> abusive solder joint processes (including rework)  that could contribute or 
> lead to catastrophic SJ failure.
>
> And yet, we all manage to do this every day in this industry.
> Dean
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>] 
> On Behalf Of David Hillman
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:16 AM
> To: 
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Subject: Re: [TN] IMC Formation Thickness in OSP
>
> Hi TechNet! I was holding off to see what folks posted. My question is "why 
> does it matter?". An industry colleague and I are collaborating on a paper 
> that covers "industry soldering myths" and intermetallic compound (IMC)  
> failure is right at the top of the list. Its a true statement that IMCs are 
> brittle but, as an industry, we seem to translate/proliferate that 
> statement into a solder joint defect. There are very very very few industry 
> reports/publications of solder joint integrity failures due to IMC in 
> product use environments. There are tons of reports of IMC failures created 
> because of grossly incorrect or abusive solder joint processes which isn't 
> the same thing. Victor - my suggestion is to focus on having a correct 
> soldering process using acceptable time/temperature parameters regardless 
> if its the initial soldering process or a rework activity. If the solder 
> process is correct, whatever the IMC thickness turns out to be, it will be 
> acceptable.
>
> Dave Hillman
> Rockwell Collins
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:58 PM, George Wenger 
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
> wrote:
>
>> Victor,
>>
>> I haven't seen and TechNetter responses but I'll give you my two cents.
>> The
>> IMC thickness numbers you heard sound much too high.  I think the IMC
>> thickness should be half as thick as those numbers.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> George Wenger
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>] 
>> On Behalf Of
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:35 AM
>> To: 
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Subject: [TN] IMC Formation Thickness in OSP
>>
>> Fellow TechNetters:
>>
>>    What is the acceptable guideline for IMC Formation thickness on OSP
>> after
>> 2x rework..   IPC-4555 is still pending.  I've heard of 3-5 microns on
>> first
>> pass and 5-10 microns on 2x RW.   All comments/suggestions welcomed.
>>
>> Victor,
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Gregory
> Kimco Design and Manufacturing
> Process Engineer
> (208) 322-0500 Ext. -3133
>
> [http://fileserver1.kimco.net/PublicDocs/KDMsig200.png]
>
> This email and any attachments are only for use by the intended 
> recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged, confidential, proprietary 
> or otherwise private information. Any unauthorized use, reproduction, 
> dissemination, distribution or other disclosure of the contents of this 
> e-mail or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.