TECHNET Archives

February 1997

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Old-Return-Path:
Date:
Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:09:12 -0600
Precedence:
list
Resent-From:
Message-ID:
X-Status:
Status:
O
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/10256
X-Lotus-FromDomain:
IO-US
TO:
Return-Path:
<TechNet-request>
X-Loop:
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Subject:
From:
Received:
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0vvUi0-0000YqC; Fri, 14 Feb 97 14:58 CST
Resent-Message-ID:
<"25jZY1.0.FAR.a7D1p"@ipc>
Resent-Sender:
TechNet-request [log in to unmask]
From [log in to unmask] Fri Feb 14 17:
29:47 1997
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)





Charles Barker
02/14/97 03:09 PM

We are investigating switching from RMA and SA based fluxes to WS fluxes.
We notice much higher and inconsistent Ohmegameter readings with the WS
fluxes. Is there a better means of measuring Ionic contaminants when using
WS flux? What are others using to check how "clean" a WS processed assembly
is after wash?

Thanks in advance.

Charlie Barker


***************************************************************************
* 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.        *
***************************************************************************
* If you are having a problem with the IPC TechNet forum please contact   *
* Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask]      *
***************************************************************************



ATOM RSS1 RSS2