Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:39:52 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
base64 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="utf-8" |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
QFN’s in a Lead-free environment (like SAC305).
> On Apr 26, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Stadem, Richard D <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Bev, you anwered at 12:17 my time, and I sent at 12:18 my time.
> Then I read your response below.
> Great minds think alike, eh?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of BEV CHRISTIAN
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 12:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Flux question
>
> Joey,
> You probably don’t want to hear this, but… the answer is “it depends”. How marginal is marginal? What is the lead finish? Are the pad connected to a ground plane? What is your reflow profile?
>
> Regards,
> Bev
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
> From: Jose A Rios
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 1:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] Flux question
>
> Is ROL0 flux an adequate one when faced with having to solder marginally oxidized components. Or should a different flux type be selected. Application is ground based/hi-rel (non flight). Flowdown is J-001 (not space addendum). Thanks….
>
>
> José (Joey) Ríos, Sr QA Engineer
> Mission Assurance Manager
> Kavli Institute for Astrophysics & Space Research Massachusetts Institute of Technology [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> (617)324-6272
|
|
|