Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0teNZp-0000P4C; Mon, 22 Jan 96 08:50 CST |
Encoding: |
15 TEXT |
From [log in to unmask] Mon Jan 22 12: |
40:50 1996 |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 96 09:52:00 EST |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Message-ID: |
<31035E3E@MSMAIL-GTWY> |
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"urhLH2.0.QyB.tGw0n"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Mailer: |
Microsoft Mail V3.0 |
X-Loop: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Following from the EMPF HelpLine, prepared by Pat Kane:
In my limited experience with spray fluxing, the biggest advantage seems to
be the lower amount of material used during run cycles. The working life of
the flux is greatly reduced in foam fluxing due to moisture absorbtion.
This is not seen with spray since the flux is maintained in the container
until sprayed. Cleaning of the spray machine is a tradeoff with the
foamers, they both need to be cleaned well after each use to insure maximum
performance. An added bonus to spray also seems to be less dripping of flux
into the preheat area of the wave solder due to reduced material volume
being used. This is not to say that the coverage results are inadequate.
As far as quality issues, the proper setup of the spray should result in
acceptable results. The hole penetration of the flux will be a setup
parameter that will be of the greatest concern. Hope this helps.
|
|
|