Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 25 Jan 1996 19:49:54 -0800 |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
X-Sender: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
|
X-Loop: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"oEiz-1.0.pcB.uo32n"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tfdvd-0000PLC; Thu, 25 Jan 96 20:30 CST |
X-Mailer: |
Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 |
From [log in to unmask] Wed Jan 31 10: |
45:11 1996 |
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
We manufacture pcbs and have used Taiyo LPI for over 7 years. I have no
experience using clean cycles or fluxes, but I offer the following practical
observations.
It is possible to get white spots on LPI soldermask when certain assembly
fluxes react with under-cured soldermask. This is true of Taiyo as well. We
believe that a simple test for this condition is to apply a hot soldering
iron to the white spots. If they become clear, then this is the case.
At the time we experienced problems, Taiyo LPI was basically a
"thermal-cured" mask. That is, the original process specifications from
Taiyo said to simply bake the boards after development to achieve final
cure. We found that mask/flux interactions (white spots) were totally
eliminated if we gave the boards a "UV bump" after the bake cycle (similar
to UV cure cycles required by other masks on the market).
I offer no explanation for peeling/deteriorating mask. I have no way of
knowing if your vendor currently UV bumps the pcbs, nor have I read Taiyo's
latest process specifications to see if they now recommend the additional UV
bump. I offer this only because the soldering iron is such a quick and low
cost test that you couldn't lose by trying it.
Glynn Shaw, President
Proto Engineering Corp.
181 Commercial St.
Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: (408)738-0693
fax: (408)738-1290
modem: (408)738-1388
|
|
|