So what process is better?  No-clean, water soluble, etc?

Brian Ellis wrote:
>
> 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
> ##############################################################