Yes, it has a CAS no. I'm not sure that I'm at liberty to divulge it at the moment as I was mandated to research it and he who pays the piper calls the tune, even though I don't have a formal NDA. I'll consult they who commissioned me to get formal permission. In the meantime, no more guesswork, please; I'll not answer yea or nay to further guesses. Brian On 01/02/2012 15:51, Douglas Pauls wrote: > Brian, does this mystery material have a CAS number? Or has the Hillman > virus latched on to you and this is now the weekly Compound Quiz? > > Doug Pauls > > > > From: Brian Ellis<[log in to unmask]> > To:<[log in to unmask]> > Date: 02/01/2012 04:50 AM > Subject: Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration > Sent by: TechNet<[log in to unmask]> > > > > No N, no F, Cl, Br, I, At, Just C, H& O. Non-flammable, combustible, > FP>50�C! Solubilises rosin quite easily. Mixes with H2O in all > proportions. Does not attack constructional materials, including UPVC, > PP, PTFE, mixed bed DI resins (causes shrinkage of latter, the same as > IPA). Downside: causes stress cracking in PS, PMMA; dissolves > rosin-based tape adhesive, cannot use density to determine % in water. > Available in high purity. Cost:>IPA<Pure EtOH in most countries. > > 'Nuff said! > > Brian > > On 01/02/2012 04:17, Bev Christian wrote: >> Brian, >> A non-flammable ether? Hmm. You have stirred my curiosity. > Non-flammable because of high molecular weight? Nitrogen groups on the > ends? Hopefully not halogens? >> Bev >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis >> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:52 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration >> >> Je ne comprends pas! >> >> Pure water has equal numbers of hydroxyl and hydronium ions at all >> temperatures. The exponent of the ion concentration falls from about 15 >> at 0�C to 12 at 100�C (approximations). IOW, the warmer the water the >> lower the ionic concentration. I don't think this is important for the >> solubilisation of minute quantities of contaminants which will mostly >> dissolve better at higher temperatures because of molecular effects >> (there are some exceptions). The IPA plays almost no role in the ionic >> dissolution process as it is very weakly ionic compared with water. Its >> only purpose is to dissolve rosin in the flux so as to release >> encapsulated ionic materials. The more IPA in the solution, ionic >> contamination testing becomes less sensitive. If there were no >> alcohol-soluble/water insoluble components in the contaminant porridge, >> then such testing would achieve maximum sensitivity with 0% IPA. This is >> why the UK and some other defence standards specify 50% IPA and not 75%; >> it doubles the sensitivity of the test as there is double the quantity >> of water, which is all that counts. The 75% was originally chosen by >> Hobson et al. because the original test in MIL-P-28809 employed wetting >> the PCB from a wash bottle and collecting the drippings, typically in >> less than a minute, so they needed something that dissolved RMA residues >> as rapidly as possible. IMO, it was, and still is, a big mistake to >> perpetuate the 75% IPA solution with instruments where the circuit is >> immersed, because of saturation of heavy metal salts. If I were to write >> a spec today from scratch, I would not even specify IPA but rather a >> non-flammable ether at 25% or 33.3%, giving 3-4 times the sensitivity of >> the test. I did extensive research of this idea in the mid-1990s and had >> very positive results. The problem was IPA was firmly entrenched and it >> seemed no one wanted to change the existing specs. I still have some of >> my lab notes dating from April/May 1996. >> >> Brian >> >> On 31/01/2012 13:44, Joyce Koo wrote: >>> Maximum dissociation of oh vs h3o vs vapor pressure If I am not > mistaken. >>> -------------------------- >>> Sent using BlackBerry >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 06:34 AM >>> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum<[log in to unmask]>; Joyce Koo >>> Subject: Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration >>> >>> What is a "sweet spot"? >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> On 31/01/2012 13:22, Joyce Koo wrote: >>>> Correct me if I am wrong, 45-55C is a sweet spot for water. Add > IPA,it is a different story. Graham, can you kindly let me know what is > it? Many thx.(from 50% - 75% IPA). >>>> -------------------------- >>>> Sent using BlackBerry >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: PIRES Fabrice [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 06:05 AM >>>> To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> >>>> Subject: Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration >>>> >>>> Graham, >>>> >>>> I agree that the main objective of ROSE measurements should be > assembly control (even for no-clean processes) and not process > qualification, that SIR is the right method for process risk assessment > and then process qualification, and that ion chromatography (IC) gives > much more information than ionic contamination about contamination nature > and then associated risks. >>>> >>>> But these 2 techniques (SIR and IC) have as main inconveniency they > cannot be used on every day base contrary to ionic contamination in > addition of their higher cost. So ionic contamination IMHO keeps > interesting for every day controls provided SIR test have been performed > previously to qualify the assembly process. >>>> >>>> About HOT ROSE, the first question is what would be the max T?C to > avoid side effect according to you ? 30, 40 or 45C ? Moreover even with > some flame retardant leaching, the most important for assembly control > should be to perform ROSE measurements always the same (so with same and > reasonnable leaching). >>>> At last I suppose HOT ROSE also means better temperature control > whatever the workshop temperature and quantity of measurements (lots of > measurements induces increase of solution T?C due to pump heating ). So > HOT ROSE should allow to perform ROSE measurements in more controlled > temperature (even if it is a at moderate T?C), which is IMO very > important factor for measurement repeatability. >>>> >>>> Fabrice >>>> >>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>> De?: Graham Naisbitt [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >>>> Envoy?: lundi 30 janvier 2012 19:05 >>>> ?: TechNet E-Mail Forum; PIRES Fabrice >>>> Objet?: Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration >>>> >>>> Fabrice >>>> >>>> What do you hope to measure by this technique? >>>> >>>> There are just as many non-ionic contaminants in a no-clean process > that will not be detected by this technique. It should ONLY be used to > control the assembly process. >>>> >>>> SIR testing is non-discriminating between ionic and non-ionic species, > it simply looks for resistance changes. IF you find a problem with > SIR,then use Ion Chromatography or FTIR to establish what is there causing > an SIR problem. >>>> >>>> HOT ROSE testing will, IMHO, give you a lot of cause for concern > without a clear understanding of whether it means anything to the end > productservice reliability. It might also burn-down your facility, but > that's adifferent issue. :-) >>>> >>>> No-clean ROSE testing maybe requires another route.which is what we > are working on. >>>> >>>> Graham Naisbitt >>>> >>>> On 30 Jan 2012, at 13:47, PIRES Fabrice wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> As temperature is important for the contamination measurements it > seems highly recommandable to perform the measurements at constant T?C > and for that reason temperature-controlled equipment should appear as an > interesting solution. >>>>> >>>>> Heated solution should be also particurlarly interesting for ionic > contamination measurements on no-clean PCA for those performing such > measurements or on some dirty PCAs. As no-clean or some dirty PCA induce a > lotmore residues comparatively to cleaned PCA and requires usually much > longer measuring time. It could be more than 1 or even 2 hours for > asymptote. Higher temperatures (up to 45?C to limit solution > evaporationor other side effects) allow to reduce significantly this > duration to more industrially acceptable values. >>>>> >>>>> So if heated solution should be used with precaution as previously > noted it can also offer some advantages. >>>>> >>>>> fabrice >>>>> >>>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>>> De : TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de Graham Naisbitt >>>>> Envoy? : lundi 30 janvier 2012 13:21 >>>>> ? : [log in to unmask] >>>>> Objet : Re: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration >>>>> >>>>> Hello Techies >>>>> >>>>> The equipment Brian refers to is Contaminometer - and they are > stillmade, by me. Sorry for the advert but.everyone keeps talking about my > competitors. >>>>> >>>>> However, as regards the issue of test time, keep-in-mind that some > folk recommend testing with heated solution, and temperature has a > significant effect in the measurement technique. Some systems also suffer > from excess temperature deviation during the test cycle and it does make a > difference to your results - false positives and/or false negatives are > undesirable. >>>>> >>>>> Hot or warm solution has been shown to increase the risk of > leachingthe flame retardant (Bromine) out of the laminate, through the > mask and onto the board surface. (IVF, Sweden circa 1992) >>>>> >>>>> Instruments should provide compensation for both temperature and > CO2effects. >>>>> >>>>> Given that Rigo is working at NASA, I thought this info might be > important. >>>>> >>>>> This test method is great for controlling your assembly process. It's > is NOT safe to assume that tested assemblies yielding results > of<1,5microgrammes of NaCl equivalence are good because it implies that it > is safeto leave UP TO 1.5 micro grammes of salt on every square centimetre > of your assembly.maybe, maybe not... >>>>> >>>>> Hope this helps - see you in San Diego? >>>>> >>>>> Graham Naisbitt >>>>> Gen3 Systems >>>>> www.gen3 systems.com >>>>> >>>>> On 26 Jan 2012, at 18:12, Brian Ellis wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, it depends! In the instruments I used to make, they measured to > within 1% of estimated asymptote or 15 min, whichever was the shorter. By > curve fitting, the software extrapolated to asymptote and then analysed > the 2 or 3 major components that made up the total curve (e.g. if therewas > a component due to activators in a rosin matrix, this would > dissolveslowly, while salt from fingerprints would dissolve rapidly), thus > determining the ug/cm? eq. NaCl for each type of contaminant and the > printout gave a list of possible contaminants creating each component > curve shape. Effectively, although it was limited to 15 min actual > measurement, some contaminants (e.g. substrate leaching) took hours or > days to asymptote and this was indicated. Of course, to have a test that > long would be impossible, because CO2 absorption (which was compensated > for in these instruments) would be greater than the dissolved leachates > and the accuracy would be lower than a real 15 min test! >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26/01/2012 18:46, Stadem, Richard D. wrote: >>>>>>> The minimum time is ten minutes. Read all about this in > IPC-HDBK-001 section 8.3.6 and 8.3.7. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Garcia, Rigo > (GSFC-300.0)[MANTECH SRS TECHNOLOGIES] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:16 AM >>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>>>> Subject: [TN] Typical ROSE Test Duration >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi everybody! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have looked at several document but can't find the answer. This > should be an easy one for my TechNet buddies though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anybody know what the typical duration for the ROSE Test is? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rigo Garcia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sr. Quality Assurance Engineer >>>>>>> Workmanship Standards, Code 300 >>>>>>> NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center >>>>>>> Greenbelt, MD 20771 >>>>>>> Phone. (301) 286-6129 >>>>>>> Fax. (301) 286-6576 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>