TECHNET Archives

May 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:
"lduso - Diamond-MT.com" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, lduso - Diamond-MT.com
Date:
Thu, 3 May 2018 07:38:33 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Personally, I think UV in parylene is not very useful. You will never get
good UV trace dispersion with parylene. It will always be spotty. Due to
the method of the application of parylene the UV trace in parylene is good
only for deciding whether or not a board is coated but never to be trusted
for inspection. We find that Parylene is actually easier to inspect for us
than liquids once you know what to look for.

Lloyd Duso
Plant Manager
Diamond-MT
(814) 535-3505
www.Diamond-mt.com

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Wayne Showers <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> The Aven lights have the same longer wavelength (400nm) that Doug is
> debating.  I have had some escapes using these UV-ring lamps.   The
> inspection was of Parylene which is known to be spotty at best for
> fluorescing, but checking under a UV-A lamp showed clearly the coating on
> the pins which was the defect.  The defect did not show up nearly was well
> under the ring light.  NADCAP AC7114 has not been cross applied to AC7120
> as of yet, but should it be, then these lamps will not meet standard.
> Unfortunately, if there is any call-out for NADCAP, ASTM or other industry
> standard requirement, unless a UV pass filter is used, then both Doug's UV
> lights and the AVEN combo Halo's do not meet specification.
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2