 
| X400-Content-Type: |
P2-1988 ( 22 ) |
| From [log in to unmask] Fri Aug 16 16: |
17:51 1996 |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
16 Aug 96 13:15:19 -0500 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Conversion: |
Allowed |
| Disclose-Recipients: |
Prohibited |
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| Priority: |
non-urgent |
| Content-Return: |
Allowed |
| X-Loop: |
|
| TO: |
|
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Message-Id: |
<074753214BAB7004*/c=us/admd=cwmail/prmd=carrier/o=syracuse/ou=ccmail1/s=Parr/g=Aric/@MHS> |
| X400-Recipients: |
non-disclosure; |
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0urTSb-0000MTC; Fri, 16 Aug 96 13:17 CDT |
| X400-Originator: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"DrAnR2.0.yjJ.uiB5o"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Alternate-Recipient: |
Allowed |
| X400-Received: |
by /c=us/admd=cwmail/; Relayed; 16 Aug 96 13:15:19 -0500
by mta MTAwltk in /c=us/admd=cwmail/; Relayed;
16 Aug 96 13:15:19 -0500 |
| Content-Identifier: |
074753214BAB7004 |
| X400-Mts-Identifier: |
[/c=us/admd=cwmail/; 074753214BAB7004-MTAwltk] |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Nitrogen is not required for low solids no clean flux. We have been
doing this in open air for several years, including surface mount. We
have retrofitted one machine with nitrogen (short tunnel) and have one
long tunnel. The main benefit has been maintenance and up time from
dross reduction.
I am not sure if I will even retrofit our remaining machines, although
all new machines will have factory installed nitrogen (which is
significantly more efficient than retrofits designed by a gas
supplier).
Our biggest problems with test fixtures and probes were solved with
flux application process changes, not by nitrogen. We have almost no
false rejects due to flux residues. Most past problems were due to
stuck probes (no spring) and/or flux attacking the fixture, not
electrical contact failure.
[log in to unmask]
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: ASSY: BOUNDARY VS. FULL TUNNEL WAVE SOLDER NITROGEN INERTING
Author: [log in to unmask] at internet
Date: 8/16/96 12:30 AM
DOES ANYONE HAVE EXPERIENCE IN COMPARING INERTING THE WAVE
SOLDERING OPERATION ONLY AT THE WAVE AS OPPOSED TO FULL
TUNNEL INERTING?
CAN YOU GO TO VERY LOW SOLIDS FLUXES (0.5-1.0%) WITH
BOUNDARY INERTING OR DO YOU NEED THE FULL TUNNEL?
IF YOU CAN GET BY WITH BOUNDARY INERTING:
1. CAN YOU GAIN A BENEFIT BY BEING ABLE TO USE LESS
EXPENSIVE, LOW FORCE PROBE, TEST FIXTURES?
2. CAN YOU DECREASE THE FALSE REJECTS IN TEST WHICH ARE DUE
TO FLUX RESIDUES?
VIC BELDAVS
(414) 362-2797
[log in to unmask]
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
