TECHNET Archives

March 1999

TechNet@IPC.ORG

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

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Fri, 26 Mar 1999 15:04:40 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (132 lines)
Well I contend a rose is still a rose, if they are using the plasma to remove
the oxide then it is a flux. It may be a more sexy, complicated way with lots
of high tech bells and whistles to play with and learn about, but it is still
a flux per my my meaning 2.
I'm sure the work that the guy at Salford is doing is interesting but in the
end in engineering terms  (or as justifiable to the bean counters) all we will
be interested in is the cost of the plasma process which will generate residue
free boards vs the cost of  existing ways of  producing residue free boards
such as a cleaning machine or what ever.

Sorry to not reply sooner but I have been away from my machine.

Mike Fenner
+++++

In a message dated 23/03/99  07:40:37PM,  [log in to unmask] writes:

> Subj:  RE: Re: [TN] Fluxless Soldering
>  Date:        23/03/99  07:40:37PM
>  From:        [log in to unmask]
>  To:  [log in to unmask]
>
>  File:  BDY.RTF (4034 bytes)
>  DL Time (TCP/IP): < 1 minute
>
>  Mike,
>
>  Maybe in this case the rose is a tulip!
>
>  A PhD student at Salford University is basing his course work on trying
>  plasma cleaning as the basis for fluxless soldering for wavesoldering.
>  Early days yet but so far reasonably encouraging.
>
>  I believe Nortel are doing the same!
>
>  Regards Iain.
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Oxonfenuk [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>  Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 11:19 PM
>  To: TechNet
>  Cc: Oxonfenuk
>  Subject: Re: [TN] Fluxless Soldering
>
>
>                     *** WARNING ***
>
>  This mail has originated outside your organization,
>  either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>       Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
>
>  All the fluxless soldering methods I have seen involve flux..... of some
>  sort
>  or another. Depends what you mean by the word, - to reduce to the bare
>  essentials.
>
>  Meaning 1: A liquid used during soldering
>  Meaning 2: A process or chemical which removes oxides from surfaces to
>  be
>  joined using solder.
>
>  Now as all metal surfaces become oxidised and oxide doesn't solder very
>  well,
>  it has to be removed one way or the other. So if you don't have meaning
>  1,
>  then you have to have meaning 2. Meaning 2 incorporates ultrasonics,
>  reducing
>  atmospheres, preparation fluids and so on.
>  As the poet said: A rose by any other name is still a rose..... but you
>  can
>  call it fluxless soldering if you call it meaning 1. If you see what I
>  mean.
>  Marketing types are usually proposing a proprietary variant of meaning
>  2, and
>  narrowly define a flux as a liquid  (meaning 1) in order to get their
>  message
>  across.
>
>
>  Mike Fenner
>
>  -----------------
>
>
>  In a message dated 10/03/99  06:38:38PM,
>  [log in to unmask]
>  writes:
>
>  > Richard Hamilton <[log in to unmask]> March 10, 1999  8:46 am >>>
>  >  Hello fellow TechNetters,
>  >
>  >  Well, we were asked a question by the design engineering manager
>  yesterday
>  >  if we had considered a fluxless soldering process. We are aware of a
>  process
>  >  called Solid Solder Deposit (SSD), but not a fluxless process by
>  name.
>  >
>  >  After the manager read us the email he got from one of the marketing
>  types,
>  >  I tend to believe that he was referring to no-clean process because
>  of a
>  >  reference in his note about cleaning boards at a previous
>  manufacturer
>  (TI).
>  >  My guess (oh how I hate to guess/assume) is that this marketing type
>  has
>  >  just mixed up a couple of buzz-words together,.....kinda like
>  'military
>  >  intelligence'. I mean look at it, 'no-clean flux', I can see how a
>  sales
>  >  person would want to shorten that to 'no-flux'. Now as usual, it is
>  up to
>  us
>  >  manufacturing people to invent the process that has been sold to the
>  >  customer!!
>  >
>

################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TechNet 
################################################################
Please visit IPC's web site (http://www.ipc.org) "On-Line Services" section for additional information.
For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.312
################################################################


ATOM RSS1 RSS2