I wasn't on distribution for that one. LOL Ed Popielarski Engineering Manager 970 NE 21st Ct. Oak Harbor, Wa. 98277 Ph: 360-675-1322 Fx: 206-624-0965 Cl: 949-581-6601 https://maps.google.com/maps/myplaces?hl=en&ll=48.315753,-122.643578&spn=0.011188,0.033023&ctz=420&t=m&z=16&iwloc=A -----Original Message----- From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 9:08 AM To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Ed Popielarski Subject: Re: [TN] Flux classification question Ed, Wasn't that the time that they wanted to change the name of malic acid to malific acid? Brian On 08.05.2013 18:38, Ed Popielarski wrote: > I had some involvement with this Hughes project. It was licensed and marketed by Kester under P/N HF1189 (November, 1989) later to be revised HF1189A (apple juice). HF1189 is still available in pen dispense media. I do recall a tremendous crystalline buildup under the conveyor rails over the solder nozzle which was insoluble in H2O or IPA, but dissolved quite nicely in household ammonia. I assume this was some sort of metallic salt. The boards were left with a haze around the solder joints which also had the same solubility characteristics. I recall the engineer involved along with his red-headed side-kick, but will refrain from mentioning them to protect the innocent. > > IMHO, the whole thing was a "publicity stunt" engineered to distract > the public eye from other issues looming at the time, but hey, what do > I know?! <wink> > > Ed Popielarski > Engineering Manager > > > 970 NE 21st Ct. > Oak Harbor, Wa. 98277 > > Ph: 360-675-1322 > Fx: 206-624-0965 > Cl: 949-581-6601 > > https://maps.google.com/maps/myplaces?hl=en&ll=48.315753,-122.643578&s > pn=0.011188,0.033023&ctz=420&t=m&z=16&iwloc=A > > > -----Original Message----- > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Fenner > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 8:13 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [TN] Flux classification question > > Hello Brian > I waited before answering.... > Your brainbox might not be going all the way to peak revs but it's on all cylinders, so you are right - as usual :) I have a less secure memory of a new wonder flux brought out by Hughes [as then was] based on citric which was wonderful in tests but in practice had shortcomings. This would be early/mid 90s? It was taken up under licence by an established flux supplier but quickly dropped. I also remember a critique, I think on this forum so it had to be by you, explaining why it was no good. Something to do with double bonds and insolubility. > So far as Zeva was concerned their machines were a triumph of good German engineering over bad operating principal (they had no choice because of patents), but so far as I recall the only reason for buying their fluxes was because they were part of a package. They were good for engineers to come up with, but were relatively easy for a specialist materials supplier to displace. I should have said: > .... Citric acid ... has a place on the scale, but is not much used in fluxes THESE DAYS. > > Best Wishes > > > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:12 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [TN] Flux classification question > > If my aged brainbox is right, ZEVA in Germany made a flux with citric acid activator for their drag soldering machines, going back 40-50 years. It is interesting as being a common tricarboxylic acid, therefore quite a powerful reducing agent. It is also quite a good chelating agent, so can "capture" difficult-to-dissolve heavy metal salts, including both lead and tin ones, so it has a double-whammy effect. It works best as an additive (say 20-30%) to conventional dicarboxylic acid (e.g. adipic), rather than by itself. > > Brian > > On 08.05.2013 14:57, Mike Fenner wrote: >> HI >> The difficulty of explaining chemistry to non chemists is not to over >> explain it. This just confuses. I usually talk of strong and weak >> acids, weak being natural acids - those found in life usually with >> quite big formulas, and strong or mineral acids which are usually quite simple. > Using >> a scale (logarithmic) to illustrate where on the scale these things >> go and where fluxes would be. Also add in things from daily life >> which people are familiar with Fruit juices, vinegar, cola. >> Citric acid is naturally found in citrus fruits - oranges lemons - >> has a place on the scale, but is not much used in fluxes, it can have >> wash off problems. >> >> Best Wishes >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sue Powers-Hartman [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:21 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: RE: [TN] Flux classification question >> >> Mike, >> >> I like what you wrote. While teaching J-Std001 class, I try to >> define the different Fluxes. Would you further define organic and inorganic? >> It is difficult to find what they are made of, tho I have been told >> that organic fluxes are citrus based. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Sue Powers-Hartman >> Certified IPC Trainer: J-STD-001E, J-STD-001ES, IPC-A 600H, >> IPC-A-610E, IPC/WHMA-A-620A, IPC 7711-7721B, Killdeer Mountain >> Manufacturing >> 233 Rodeo Drive >> Killdeer ND 58640 >> 701-764-5651 ext 128 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Fenner >> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:45 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [TN] Flux classification question >> >> The term "Resin" describes a group of chemicals which includes >> natural materials such as shellac from beetles and synthetic >> materials such as epoxies. The natural material we are most familiar >> with in soldering is rosin - aka colophony - which is extracted from >> pine trees in much the > same >> way as rubber is tapped. Some of the first soldering fluxes were made >> from rosin which has nearly all the attributes needed for electronic soldering. >> It does not have quite the oxide removal properties to be totally >> satisfactory and so more active chemicals are blended with it, these >> are known as activators. The amount and type added is controlled to >> avoid too much activity which can lead to corrosion. This gave us the >> old style R (pure rosin) RMA (mildly activated and RA (fully activated) designations. >> You can tell the military was involved in these because mildly >> activated rosin would more naturally be abbreviated MAR rather than RMA. :) . >> These old style specs were based on composition, basically they said >> if > you >> use these materials in these proportions and they meet compositional >> tests (e.g. less than a certain amount of activator or leachable acid >> then they were considered safe. In other words pragmatic based on a >> few decades of finding out what worked and what didn't. >> Modern no clean technology requires more than just chemical and >> electrical properties, clear light residues for example and these are >> more easily met by using other resins. If you look at current >> specifications you will see that the no clean classification is the >> same for rosin or resin containing materials. Whether or not a flux >> meets modern specs is not so much > concerned >> with what is in the flux as supplied, but what the residues do after > reflow. >> So the test criteria are surface insulation resistance (SIR) of >> reflowed test pieces and so on. The post solder tests for no cleans >> were based on > how >> RMA fluxes behaved. The RE and RO in flux designations is really now >> for information only and help provide continuity from the previous >> spec regime and flux types to the ones we use now. [Also for those >> still doing legacy work for those requiring MIL spec fluxes.] This >> explanation is somewhat oversimplified for clarity. Hope it helps. >> >> Regards >> >> Mike Fenner >> Bonding Services & Products >> M: +44 [0] 7810 526 317 >> T: +44 [0] 1865 522 663 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Graham Collins >> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:13 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: [TN] Flux classification question >> >> Flux gurus, can you tell me the difference between ROLO and RELO fluxes? >> >> (Dewey, I know - the second letter is different, that isn't helpful!) >> >> Is a RELO more active or less? Or does the E mean something else? >> >> -- >> regards, >> >> Graham Collins >> Senior Process Engineer >> Sunsel Systems >> (902) 444-7867 ext 211 >> >> >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> _ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud >> service. >> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or >> [log in to unmask] >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> _ >> >> >> >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> _ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud >> service. >> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or >> [log in to unmask] >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> _ >> >> >> >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> _ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud >> service. >> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or >> [log in to unmask] >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> _ >> > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or > [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or > [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or > [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________________________