TECHNET Archives

April 2018

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:
"Stadem, Richard D" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Stadem, Richard D
Date:
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:32:19 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Better to take a scrap PWB and a few of the oxidized parts and run them through your process. Wetting balance results and real process results are too often two completely different things.

Odin



-----Original Message-----

From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Burke

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 12:28 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [TN] Flux question



	

		

		

	

		I doubt that ROLO will work you need to run solderability testing using your flux and a wetting balance tester.

		

		



		Sent from my iPad Pro

	











On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:07 AM -0700, "Jose A Rios" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:





















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]

(617)324-6272


ATOM RSS1 RSS2