 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0toc2g-0000FHC; Mon, 19 Feb 96 14:18 CST |
| Encoding: |
16 TEXT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 19 Feb 96 14:21:00 CST |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"W9F9I2.0.NOB.TiDAn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Microsoft Mail V3.0 |
| From [log in to unmask] Tue Feb 20 16: |
24:36 1996 |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
A test was ran of 20 pcb's 10 of them were fluxed with a AT&T LSF 2000 spray
fluxer, the other 10 were ran with a foam fluxer. The boards were not
preheated or soldered and the flux residue was allowed to dry from the
boards. The boards were then tested for contamination. The boards that
were foam fluxed came out about 10 NaUgcl cleaner then the boards ran with
the spray fluxer. This was shocking to many of us. We are and were under
the impression that spray fluxers apply not only a more even layer of flux
but also less of it. Can anyone offer any insight to this? the flux used
is a 1.5 % solids no clean flux. And yes the specific gravity of the flux
was constant in both application methods. Thanks in advance for your imput.
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|
