Dave

As a pedant, I may go along with you on this, at least partially. I have used the
term "no-clean" (always in inverted commas) for both material and process. "Low
residue" is not necessarily the same, though. Many people use RMA with 25% or more
solids as a "no-clean" and certainly the DIN F-SW32 fluxes, generally 15-30% solids,

must be "no-clean" because you cannot clean them for love nor money. And no solder
paste can be classed as low solids, as 50% or thereabouts of the stuff (by volume)
is low-volatility chemistry. OK, the residues may be neatly transparent and matt, so

you have difficulty seeing the residues but they are there.

My personal definition of a "no-clean" flux/paste is one where the residues do not
have to be removed for selected and qualified applications. A "no-clean" process is
one where the post-soldering residues are not removed.

Again, as a pedant, I think your message has revealed a requirement for a new
terminology but, where there is already a firmly entrenched one, neither you nor I
will ever budge it.

Best regards

Brian

[log in to unmask] wrote:

> Hi TechNet! Just to add a bit of wordsmithing to Brian's internet references.
> The electronics community has created itself a technical "cultural" bias which
> is going to take some time to undo. We have interchangeably used "no clean" to
> describe both the material and process aspects of a product (e.g. flux). We
> should be using the term "low residue" to describe the material characteristics
> of a flux - how much flux residue is left on a printed assembly after soldering
> processing. We should be using the term "no clean" to describe the process
> characteristics of a flux - is it removable  or non-removeable after solder
> processing. The use of the term "no clean" for both the material and process
> aspects is very confusing to the folks on the factory floor because they can
> unintentionally misinterpret the product labeling as permission to no longer
> clean an assembly which may not be the case. I also know very few process
> engineers who are keen on having someone unfamiliar with their soldering process
> to suggest that a "no clean" flux is ok.  The description of "using a low
> residue flux in a no clean process mode" leaves little room for
> misinterpretation. Ok, enough soapboxing.
>
> Dave Hillman
> Rockwell Collins
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]> on 11/27/99 02:21:23 AM
>
> Please respond to "TechNet E-Mail Forum." <[log in to unmask]>; Please respond to
>       Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
>
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> cc:
>
> Subject:  Re: [TN] Wave Soldering
>
> The United Nations Environment Programme Solvents Technical Options
> Committee gives an excellent explanation, with the advantages and
> disadvantages of each, in Chapter 2 of their 1998 Report to the Parties to
> the Montreal Protocol. This 200 + page report can be downloaded (free) in
> PDF format from the non-commercial committee site at
> http://www.protonique.com/unepstoc
> or you may purchase the printed document from
> http://www.unep.org/ozone
>
> Brian
>
> Alberto Callo wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wonder if anyone can explain the difference between NO CLEAN and Water
> > Soluble wave solder methods.
> >

##############################################################
TechNet Mail List 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 web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################