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:
Yuan-chia Joyce Koo <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Yuan-chia Joyce Koo <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:32:44 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
it is in the formulation.  your vendor should tell you.  e.g. "6 Feb  
2015 ... Kester 186-18, under MIL-F-14256, was QPL approved as Type  
RMA. ... Type RMA flux. This flux possess high thermal stability for  
soldering multi-layer assemblies which require a high preheat  
temperature. Exposure to high preheat temperatures ... The flux  
residue is also moisture and fungus resistant."


On Apr 9, 2018, at 6:03 PM, David Hillman wrote:

> Hi team! Looking for TechNet's sage wisdom. Some folks are familiar  
> with
> this but many electronic modules have a "shall not be a fungus  
> nutrient
> material"  in terms of the components materials, laminate  
> materials, etc. I
> was asked the question if "properly reflowed flux materials are  
> classified
> as non-fungus nutrient supporting". Does anyone have an knowledge/ 
> data on
> properly reflowed flux residue being "non fungus nutrient supporting"?
>
> TIA
>
> Dave Hillman
> Rockwell Collins
> [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2