Re: RF applications..aqueos vs. no clean..HELP!!!!

Hi, I have a customer who's electronic assemblies produce RF. He is insisting upon aqueuos cleaning. We switched to a no clean solder years ago and no longer have an aqueous system. Is aqueous cleaning necessary to eliminate 'cross talk' of the signals? Or can I use no clean and maybe an alcohol brush after wave? I'm looking for advise on whether I can provide for this customer ( in other words, prove to him that aqueous isn't necessary) or whether I have to walk away as our processes don't match his needs. Any help you can offer would be appreciated.

Ps. I am a sales rep. for a contract manufacturer, and I'm looking to see if I should bother pursuing this prospect.

reply »

| Hi, | I have a customer who's electronic assemblies produce RF. He is insisting upon aqueuos cleaning. We switched to a no clean solder years ago and no longer have an aqueous system. | Is aqueous cleaning necessary to eliminate 'cross talk' of the signals? Or can I use no clean and maybe an alcohol brush after wave? I'm looking for advise on whether I can provide for this customer ( in other words, prove to him that aqueous isn't necessary) or whether I have to walk away as our processes don't match his needs. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. | | Ps. I am a sales rep. for a contract manufacturer, and I'm looking to see if I should bother pursuing this prospect. | I've had to walk away from several customers because I run aqueous and they wanted RMA or No Clean (then they want it cleaned after all). I've also acquired a few customers because I've been able to provide clean boards, I run a closed loop carbon/resin system that consistently stays above 15megs. I won't take on any jobs other than what fits my process, too many "hick-ups" can occur and you don't want a pissed off customer (one bad customer is worst than ten good ones...).

RF is a bit tricky and doesn't like stray ionic paths. Hand washing only moves the dirt and ionics around, does little to get it OFF the board - perhaps an IPA soak it an ultrasonic would work but IPA leaves spots and the customer will complain about white residue. Rinsing without ionic free water only adds fuel to the fire...

Ultimately the customer is right and may have stayed away from no-clean due to prior experiences. You may want to offer a pilot build for them to test for crosstalk if you both want to invest in the time and expense.

Unless "big" bucks along with the acquisition of a long relationship with a new customer are involved, I'd walk away... the time and investment to acquire this customer could far outstrip any profits for the year.

Good Luck, Scott

reply »

| | Hi, | | I have a customer who's electronic assemblies produce RF. He is insisting upon aqueuos cleaning. We switched to a no clean solder years ago and no longer have an aqueous system. | | Is aqueous cleaning necessary to eliminate 'cross talk' of the signals? Or can I use no clean and maybe an alcohol brush after wave? I'm looking for advise on whether I can provide for this customer ( in other words, prove to him that aqueous isn't necessary) or whether I have to walk away as our processes don't match his needs. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. | | | | Ps. I am a sales rep. for a contract manufacturer, and I'm looking to see if I should bother pursuing this prospect. | | | I've had to walk away from several customers because I run aqueous and they wanted RMA or No Clean (then they want it cleaned after all). I've also acquired a few customers because I've been able to provide clean boards, I run a closed loop carbon/resin system that consistently stays above 15megs. I won't take on any jobs other than what fits my process, too many "hick-ups" can occur and you don't want a pissed off customer (one bad customer is worst than ten good ones...). | | RF is a bit tricky and doesn't like stray ionic paths. Hand washing only moves the dirt and ionics around, does little to get it OFF the board - perhaps an IPA soak it an ultrasonic would work but IPA leaves spots and the customer will complain about white residue. Rinsing without ionic free water only adds fuel to the fire... | | Ultimately the customer is right and may have stayed away from no-clean due to prior experiences. You may want to offer a pilot build for them to test for crosstalk if you both want to invest in the time and expense. | | Unless "big" bucks along with the acquisition of a long relationship with a new customer are involved, I'd walk away... | the time and investment to acquire this customer could far outstrip any profits for the year. | | Good Luck, | Scott | Guy's,

Far be it from me but....

OA with cleaning is less costly than no-clean!

Oh Oh! Here come the bullets...

Can help prove it. Let me know if you want more info but first:

Suggest reading the articles in Precision Cleaning Magazine Feb 99 issue regarding "No-Clean the verdict" and "Cleaning of LCC's"

Regards Graham

reply »

| Hi, | I have a customer who's electronic assemblies produce RF. He is insisting upon aqueuos cleaning. We switched to a no clean solder years ago and no longer have an aqueous system. | Is aqueous cleaning necessary to eliminate 'cross talk' of the signals? Or can I use no clean and maybe an alcohol brush after wave? I'm looking for advise on whether I can provide for this customer ( in other words, prove to him that aqueous isn't necessary) or whether I have to walk away as our processes don't match his needs. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. | | Ps. I am a sales rep. for a contract manufacturer, and I'm looking to see if I should bother pursuing this prospect. |

Tim,

You don't mention what frequency ranges you might be dealing with, or where the end product is utilized. This could make a dramatic difference.

I just left a contract mfg'er who specialized in design, test, and mfg. of RF--in the 30 Hz to 5 GHz ranges. I was the marketing and business development manager.

We did a mixed bag of work; both defense and commercial. Mostly high end stuff; not cell phones or modems. Power amplifiers, radios, and Utilities stuff. We were pretty happy with using RMA chemistry for the end results. Easy to clean, no problems at ICT with probing, excellent process windows, and no complaints regarding cross-talk. I would NOT use OA chemistry in certain higher frequency ranges----too aggressive, and too much of a chance of residual ionics or flux. Those two buggers are hell in RF land. If you must look at OA, I'd do some real torture testing in salt fog chambers, and thermal cycling at various humidities.......just depends on the end application, and where the product ends up.

We were able to utilize no-clean chemistry at post-ICT / FVT failure analysis / troubleshoot areas on a few customers, but OA or no-clean is not too friendly towards most of the true RF stuff out there. It's tough enough to get customer to vendor test parity.........

Scott

reply »

| | | Hi, | | | I have a customer who's electronic assemblies produce RF. He is insisting upon aqueuos cleaning. We switched to a no clean solder years ago and no longer have an aqueous system. | | | Is aqueous cleaning necessary to eliminate 'cross talk' of the signals? Or can I use no clean and maybe an alcohol brush after wave? I'm looking for advise on whether I can provide for this customer ( in other words, prove to him that aqueous isn't necessary) or whether I have to walk away as our processes don't match his needs. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. | | | | | | Ps. I am a sales rep. for a contract manufacturer, and I'm looking to see if I should bother pursuing this prospect. | | | | | I've had to walk away from several customers because I run aqueous and they wanted RMA or No Clean (then they want it cleaned after all). I've also acquired a few customers because I've been able to provide clean boards, I run a closed loop carbon/resin system that consistently stays above 15megs. I won't take on any jobs other than what fits my process, too many "hick-ups" can occur and you don't want a pissed off customer (one bad customer is worst than ten good ones...). | | | | RF is a bit tricky and doesn't like stray ionic paths. Hand washing only moves the dirt and ionics around, does little to get it OFF the board - perhaps an IPA soak it an ultrasonic would work but IPA leaves spots and the customer will complain about white residue. Rinsing without ionic free water only adds fuel to the fire... | | | | Ultimately the customer is right and may have stayed away from no-clean due to prior experiences. You may want to offer a pilot build for them to test for crosstalk if you both want to invest in the time and expense. | | | | Unless "big" bucks along with the acquisition of a long relationship with a new customer are involved, I'd walk away... | | the time and investment to acquire this customer could far outstrip any profits for the year. | | | | Good Luck, | | Scott | | | Guy's, | | Far be it from me but.... | | OA with cleaning is less costly than no-clean! | | Oh Oh! Here come the bullets... | | Can help prove it. Let me know if you want more info but first: | | Suggest reading the articles in Precision Cleaning Magazine Feb 99 issue regarding "No-Clean the verdict" and "Cleaning of LCC's" | | Regards Graham | That's why I've stayed with OA... And I have a some very happy RF Customers (from 450MHz to 25GHz range).

Cheers, Scott

reply »