 
| Received: |
by ipchq.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0sWoeP-0000GoC; Fri, 14 Jul 95 12:35 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
<miso!aol.com!SIRGuru> |
| Date: |
Fri, 14 Jul 1995 13:10:48 -0400 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Cc: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"iYUty.0.YaG.khg1m"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 14: |
23:50 1996 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Rory,
I would say that, no, it is not possible to get electromigration in an
unbiased test. For electromigration to occur you need three elements: an
electrical potential, water, and a conductive contaminant. Electrochemical
migration occurs when this conductive contaminant mixes with water (only a
few monolayers needed). I would guess that you have a flux contamination
problem and the lead is re-deposited rather than migrated.
Doug Pauls
Contamination Studies Laboratories
317-457-8095
|
|
|
