Printed Circuit Board Assembly & PCB Design SMT Electronics Assembly Manufacturing Forum

Printed Circuit Board Assembly & PCB Design Forum

SMT electronics assembly manufacturing forum.


IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes

#9338

IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 23 September, 1999

Jackie's posting recently and responses to it got me to dondering. First, recollecting, we bought an IR rework station a couple million years ago. It had a IR source on a stand, a bunch of lenses, and Reynolds aluminum foil for shielding near-by components from the IR energy. We had good and bad experiences. More importantly, there was nothing better, at the time. Later, we moved on to hot air and it was good, well better.

The following is copied for a commercial site that is referenced at the end. My reason for posting this is not with commercial intent, but to foster dialog. Get ready to rummmmmmbleeeee!!!

Why Infra-red is superior to hot-air for SMD rework

1.The process closely follows the 'ideal' temperature profile for removing SMD components. That is, a gradual (2 degree/sec) temperature soak with a short peak at the reflow point. Hot-air devices tend to 'nuke' the devices off the board, with its attendant problems. 2.Hand-held hot-air devices only locally heat the area around the component, which can lead to delamination of the PCB. Bench mount hot air systems can exhibit similar characteristics, locally heating the area around the SMD. If the temperature gradient is too high for the PCB being worked on, delamination (the PCB layers separating) or PCB warping will occur. The PDR products preheat the entire PCB, so only a small temperature gradient occurs around the component even at reflow temperatures. 3.Adjacent components (especially light-weight chip caps or resistors) tend to blow away with the air flow, especially if trying to rework a large component placed next to the light-weight component. There is no air blowing with IR. (Try finding a 1005 (1 x 0.5mm) component after it has blown away) 4.SolderLight is non-contact IR so the problem of access to the component usually associated with densely populated PCB's is not a problem and you can see the component at all times. 5.PDRs IR system can rework all SMD components. I include SMD fine pitch connectors, which are near impossible to rework using hot air or contact methods, SMD sockets, and components with their terminations under the body of the component (BGA's and FlipChips to name two). Similar to the recommended manufacturing techniques, SolderLight uses a safe combination of heat energy from both sides of the PCB, instead of driving all of the heat through the component.

The last point is most important, the process allows for any SMD component now available, or conceivably available. Because SMD components are made for mass soldering techniques, and PDR's IR rework system re-creates a temperature profile similar to the profile used in manufacturing, all SMD components are catered for.

In summary, the SolderLight is quick and easy to use, versatile, very safe on components and PCB's, and produces extremely high quality rework.

All Rights Reserved. Copyright, � Computronics Corporation Ltd, 1999

reply »

Dean

#9339

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 23 September, 1999

| Jackie's posting recently and responses to it got me to dondering. First, recollecting, we bought an IR rework station a couple million years ago. It had a IR source on a stand, a bunch of lenses, and Reynolds aluminum foil for shielding near-by components from the IR energy. We had good and bad experiences. More importantly, there was nothing better, at the time. Later, we moved on to hot air and it was good, well better. | | The following is copied for a commercial site that is referenced at the end. My reason for posting this is not with commercial intent, but to foster dialog. Get ready to rummmmmmbleeeee!!! | | Why Infra-red is superior to hot-air for SMD rework | | 1.The process closely follows the 'ideal' temperature profile for removing SMD components. That is, a gradual (2 degree/sec) temperature soak with a short peak at the reflow point. Hot-air devices tend to 'nuke' the devices off the board, with its attendant problems. | 2.Hand-held hot-air devices only locally heat the area around the component, which can lead to delamination of the PCB. Bench mount hot air systems can exhibit similar characteristics, locally heating the area around the SMD. If the temperature gradient is too high for the PCB being worked on, delamination (the PCB layers separating) or PCB warping will occur. The PDR products preheat the entire PCB, so only a small temperature gradient occurs around the component even at reflow temperatures. | 3.Adjacent components (especially light-weight chip caps or resistors) tend to blow away with the air flow, especially if trying to rework a large component placed next to the light-weight component. There is no air blowing with IR. (Try finding a 1005 (1 x 0.5mm) component after it has blown away) | 4.SolderLight is non-contact IR so the problem of access to the component usually associated with densely populated PCB's is not a problem and you can see the component at all times. | 5.PDRs IR system can rework all SMD components. I include SMD fine pitch connectors, which are near impossible to rework using hot air or contact methods, SMD sockets, and components with their terminations under the body of the component (BGA's and FlipChips to name two). Similar to the recommended manufacturing techniques, SolderLight uses a safe combination of heat energy from both sides of the PCB, instead of driving all of the heat through the component. | | The last point is most important, the process allows for any SMD component now available, or conceivably available. Because SMD components are made for mass soldering techniques, and PDR's IR rework system re-creates a temperature profile similar to the profile used in manufacturing, all SMD components are catered for. | | In summary, the SolderLight is quick and easy to use, versatile, very safe on components and PCB's, and produces extremely high quality rework. | | All Rights Reserved. Copyright, � Computronics Corporation Ltd, 1999 | OK I'll bite! This press release is pure hype. They deserve the customers they attract. I could comment in detail, however, it matters not to those of us who know better. Plus there could be possible legal consiquences. How ironic. These IR pushing marketing maniacs are "full of hot air"! My sucessors will have to pry my SRT2000 from my cold dead hands

Dean

reply »

Earl Moon

#9340

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 23 September, 1999

| | Jackie's posting recently and responses to it got me to dondering. First, recollecting, we bought an IR rework station a couple million years ago. It had a IR source on a stand, a bunch of lenses, and Reynolds aluminum foil for shielding near-by components from the IR energy. We had good and bad experiences. More importantly, there was nothing better, at the time. Later, we moved on to hot air and it was good, well better. | | | | The following is copied for a commercial site that is referenced at the end. My reason for posting this is not with commercial intent, but to foster dialog. Get ready to rummmmmmbleeeee!!! | | | | Why Infra-red is superior to hot-air for SMD rework | | | | 1.The process closely follows the 'ideal' temperature profile for removing SMD components. That is, a gradual (2 degree/sec) temperature soak with a short peak at the reflow point. Hot-air devices tend to 'nuke' the devices off the board, with its attendant problems. | | 2.Hand-held hot-air devices only locally heat the area around the component, which can lead to delamination of the PCB. Bench mount hot air systems can exhibit similar characteristics, locally heating the area around the SMD. If the temperature gradient is too high for the PCB being worked on, delamination (the PCB layers separating) or PCB warping will occur. The PDR products preheat the entire PCB, so only a small temperature gradient occurs around the component even at reflow temperatures. | | 3.Adjacent components (especially light-weight chip caps or resistors) tend to blow away with the air flow, especially if trying to rework a large component placed next to the light-weight component. There is no air blowing with IR. (Try finding a 1005 (1 x 0.5mm) component after it has blown away) | | 4.SolderLight is non-contact IR so the problem of access to the component usually associated with densely populated PCB's is not a problem and you can see the component at all times. | | 5.PDRs IR system can rework all SMD components. I include SMD fine pitch connectors, which are near impossible to rework using hot air or contact methods, SMD sockets, and components with their terminations under the body of the component (BGA's and FlipChips to name two). Similar to the recommended manufacturing techniques, SolderLight uses a safe combination of heat energy from both sides of the PCB, instead of driving all of the heat through the component. | | | | The last point is most important, the process allows for any SMD component now available, or conceivably available. Because SMD components are made for mass soldering techniques, and PDR's IR rework system re-creates a temperature profile similar to the profile used in manufacturing, all SMD components are catered for. | | | | In summary, the SolderLight is quick and easy to use, versatile, very safe on components and PCB's, and produces extremely high quality rework. | | | | All Rights Reserved. Copyright, � Computronics Corporation Ltd, 1999 | | | OK I'll bite! | This press release is pure hype. They deserve the customers they attract. I could comment in detail, however, it matters not to those of us who know better. Plus there could be possible legal consiquences. How ironic. These IR pushing marketing maniacs are "full of hot air"! | My sucessors will have to pry my SRT2000 from my cold dead hands | | Dean | Dean,

You have some mighty big hands, but I do agree. As the Dave says, focused IR goes back to far, with now best forgotten memories reborn, to be revisited. I first used focused IR in 1965 to do hybrid thick film modules and it worked well, maybe, for that as everything was on ceramic. It worked equally well, delaminating and blistering boards beyond recognition, in its production years (1973-1973) when tin lead fusing was all the rage in board shops.

There's really no need to fight over this boys and girls. Let those board/component burner types have their say. Let the younger generations find delignt in seeing boards smell and look like popcorn. It will be good for them, though a bit costly.

Non of us can forget, in the mid-80's how Vitronics turned focused IR into convection type ovens using their proprietary "foil" intermediate transformation stuff to make hot air. Then Steve Dow and his crew set about to make Conceptronic a household board burning name. Now look at us with pure convection air ovens capable of burning boards and pizza.

I too like machines as the SRT 2100 though it's just too damn automatic and makes pin ball sounds as it robs me and my operators from pushing X-Y tables around to get alinment. Yes, I still like my old 1000 or 1100. Just can't wait to get my hands on another hot air device and go pyro.

Earl Moon

reply »

Brian

#9341

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 24 September, 1999

Bullshit

Brian

reply »

Earl Moon

#9342

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 24 September, 1999

| | | Bullshit | | Brian | | Why Brian, how very eloquent, certainly proving not very British!

MoonMan

reply »

Brian

#9343

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 25 September, 1999

| | | | | | Bullshit | | | | Brian | | | | | Why Brian, how very eloquent, certainly proving not very British! | | MoonMan | MoonMan

I could have said "male bovine excrement", but it does not quite have the same impact.

Don't know the origin of the term but I've certainly used it for over 50 years, including in the UK. When I was in the British army (1951-54), it was a popular term for excessive "spit and polish" that mindless persons in authority imposed, often abbreviated to simply "bull". It's anybody's guess which side of the Atlantic it came from. Interestingly, it is not in a Dictionary of Historical Slang, defined as pre-1914, so it would seem to be 20th century. I think I heard it during the 39-45 war, applied to speeches by such gentlemen as Hitler, Goebbels, etc., but propaganda was so rife then that any worse word would have been equally appropriate. It is in the Oxford English Dictionary but no date or causal origin is mentioned. It is not in my Merriam-Webster (1974) but probably out of puritanical reasons.

Anyone know better?

Brian

reply »

Earl Moon

#9344

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 25 September, 1999

| | | | | | | | | Bullshit | | | | | | Brian | | | | | | | | Why Brian, how very eloquent, certainly proving not very British! | | | | MoonMan | | | MoonMan | | I could have said "male bovine excrement", but it does not quite have the same impact. | | Don't know the origin of the term but I've certainly used it for over 50 years, including in the UK. When I was in the British army (1951-54), it was a popular term for excessive "spit and polish" that mindless persons in authority imposed, often abbreviated to simply "bull". It's anybody's guess which side of the Atlantic it came from. Interestingly, it is not in a Dictionary of Historical Slang, defined as pre-1914, so it would seem to be 20th century. I think I heard it during the 39-45 war, applied to speeches by such gentlemen as Hitler, Goebbels, etc., but propaganda was so rife then that any worse word would have been equally appropriate. It is in the Oxford English Dictionary but no date or causal origin is mentioned. It is not in my Merriam-Webster (1974) but probably out of puritanical reasons. | | Anyone know better? | | Brian | Well Brian, glad you asked. It has its true origins in a country called Texas (pre civilization). You may look it up in the New Texas International Dictionary (published by UT but maintained by their very close friends at A&M).

Other terms dear to me as useful in technological meetings are SNAFU (I'm sure you know that one) and fugarwe. So much for my limited vocabulary. Never the less, bullshit covers the ground quite well and hope no one minds a bit on their cowboy shoes.

Earl Moon

reply »

John

#9345

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 27 September, 1999

| | | Jackie's posting recently and responses to it got me to dondering. First, recollecting, we bought an IR rework station a couple million years ago. It had a IR source on a stand, a bunch of lenses, and Reynolds aluminum foil for shielding near-by components from the IR energy. We had good and bad experiences. More importantly, there was nothing better, at the time. Later, we moved on to hot air and it was good, well better. | | | | | | The following is copied for a commercial site that is referenced at the end. My reason for posting this is not with commercial intent, but to foster dialog. Get ready to rummmmmmbleeeee!!! | | | | | | Why Infra-red is superior to hot-air for SMD rework | | | | | | 1.The process closely follows the 'ideal' temperature profile for removing SMD components. That is, a gradual (2 degree/sec) temperature soak with a short peak at the reflow point. Hot-air devices tend to 'nuke' the devices off the board, with its attendant problems. | | | 2.Hand-held hot-air devices only locally heat the area around the component, which can lead to delamination of the PCB. Bench mount hot air systems can exhibit similar characteristics, locally heating the area around the SMD. If the temperature gradient is too high for the PCB being worked on, delamination (the PCB layers separating) or PCB warping will occur. The PDR products preheat the entire PCB, so only a small temperature gradient occurs around the component even at reflow temperatures. | | | 3.Adjacent components (especially light-weight chip caps or resistors) tend to blow away with the air flow, especially if trying to rework a large component placed next to the light-weight component. There is no air blowing with IR. (Try finding a 1005 (1 x 0.5mm) component after it has blown away) | | | 4.SolderLight is non-contact IR so the problem of access to the component usually associated with densely populated PCB's is not a problem and you can see the component at all times. | | | 5.PDRs IR system can rework all SMD components. I include SMD fine pitch connectors, which are near impossible to rework using hot air or contact methods, SMD sockets, and components with their terminations under the body of the component (BGA's and FlipChips to name two). Similar to the recommended manufacturing techniques, SolderLight uses a safe combination of heat energy from both sides of the PCB, instead of driving all of the heat through the component. | | | | | | The last point is most important, the process allows for any SMD component now available, or conceivably available. Because SMD components are made for mass soldering techniques, and PDR's IR rework system re-creates a temperature profile similar to the profile used in manufacturing, all SMD components are catered for. | | | | | | In summary, the SolderLight is quick and easy to use, versatile, very safe on components and PCB's, and produces extremely high quality rework. | | | | | | All Rights Reserved. Copyright, � Computronics Corporation Ltd, 1999 | | | | | OK I'll bite! | | This press release is pure hype. They deserve the customers they attract. I could comment in detail, however, it matters not to those of us who know better. Plus there could be possible legal consiquences. How ironic. These IR pushing marketing maniacs are "full of hot air"! | | My sucessors will have to pry my SRT2000 from my cold dead hands | | | | Dean | | | Dean, | | You have some mighty big hands, but I do agree. As the Dave says, focused IR goes back to far, with now best forgotten memories reborn, to be revisited. I first used focused IR in 1965 to do hybrid thick film modules and it worked well, maybe, for that as everything was on ceramic. It worked equally well, delaminating and blistering boards beyond recognition, in its production years (1973-1973) when tin lead fusing was all the rage in board shops. | | There's really no need to fight over this boys and girls. Let those board/component burner types have their say. Let the younger generations find delignt in seeing boards smell and look like popcorn. It will be good for them, though a bit costly. | | Non of us can forget, in the mid-80's how Vitronics turned focused IR into convection type ovens using their proprietary "foil" intermediate transformation stuff to make hot air. Then Steve Dow and his crew set about to make Conceptronic a household board burning name. Now look at us with pure convection air ovens capable of burning boards and pizza. | | I too like machines as the SRT 2100 though it's just too damn automatic and makes pin ball sounds as it robs me and my operators from pushing X-Y tables around to get alinment. Yes, I still like my old 1000 or 1100. Just can't wait to get my hands on another hot air device and go pyro. | | Earl Moon | Hey! I've got an idea --- Vapor Phase rework!!

reply »

Earl Moon

#9346

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 27 September, 1999

| | | | Jackie's posting recently and responses to it got me to dondering. First, recollecting, we bought an IR rework station a couple million years ago. It had a IR source on a stand, a bunch of lenses, and Reynolds aluminum foil for shielding near-by components from the IR energy. We had good and bad experiences. More importantly, there was nothing better, at the time. Later, we moved on to hot air and it was good, well better. | | | | | | | | The following is copied for a commercial site that is referenced at the end. My reason for posting this is not with commercial intent, but to foster dialog. Get ready to rummmmmmbleeeee!!! | | | | | | | | Why Infra-red is superior to hot-air for SMD rework | | | | | | | | 1.The process closely follows the 'ideal' temperature profile for removing SMD components. That is, a gradual (2 degree/sec) temperature soak with a short peak at the reflow point. Hot-air devices tend to 'nuke' the devices off the board, with its attendant problems. | | | | 2.Hand-held hot-air devices only locally heat the area around the component, which can lead to delamination of the PCB. Bench mount hot air systems can exhibit similar characteristics, locally heating the area around the SMD. If the temperature gradient is too high for the PCB being worked on, delamination (the PCB layers separating) or PCB warping will occur. The PDR products preheat the entire PCB, so only a small temperature gradient occurs around the component even at reflow temperatures. | | | | 3.Adjacent components (especially light-weight chip caps or resistors) tend to blow away with the air flow, especially if trying to rework a large component placed next to the light-weight component. There is no air blowing with IR. (Try finding a 1005 (1 x 0.5mm) component after it has blown away) | | | | 4.SolderLight is non-contact IR so the problem of access to the component usually associated with densely populated PCB's is not a problem and you can see the component at all times. | | | | 5.PDRs IR system can rework all SMD components. I include SMD fine pitch connectors, which are near impossible to rework using hot air or contact methods, SMD sockets, and components with their terminations under the body of the component (BGA's and FlipChips to name two). Similar to the recommended manufacturing techniques, SolderLight uses a safe combination of heat energy from both sides of the PCB, instead of driving all of the heat through the component. | | | | | | | | The last point is most important, the process allows for any SMD component now available, or conceivably available. Because SMD components are made for mass soldering techniques, and PDR's IR rework system re-creates a temperature profile similar to the profile used in manufacturing, all SMD components are catered for. | | | | | | | | In summary, the SolderLight is quick and easy to use, versatile, very safe on components and PCB's, and produces extremely high quality rework. | | | | | | | | All Rights Reserved. Copyright, � Computronics Corporation Ltd, 1999 | | | | | | | OK I'll bite! | | | This press release is pure hype. They deserve the customers they attract. I could comment in detail, however, it matters not to those of us who know better. Plus there could be possible legal consiquences. How ironic. These IR pushing marketing maniacs are "full of hot air"! | | | My sucessors will have to pry my SRT2000 from my cold dead hands | | | | | | Dean | | | | | Dean, | | | | You have some mighty big hands, but I do agree. As the Dave says, focused IR goes back to far, with now best forgotten memories reborn, to be revisited. I first used focused IR in 1965 to do hybrid thick film modules and it worked well, maybe, for that as everything was on ceramic. It worked equally well, delaminating and blistering boards beyond recognition, in its production years (1973-1973) when tin lead fusing was all the rage in board shops. | | | | There's really no need to fight over this boys and girls. Let those board/component burner types have their say. Let the younger generations find delignt in seeing boards smell and look like popcorn. It will be good for them, though a bit costly. | | | | Non of us can forget, in the mid-80's how Vitronics turned focused IR into convection type ovens using their proprietary "foil" intermediate transformation stuff to make hot air. Then Steve Dow and his crew set about to make Conceptronic a household board burning name. Now look at us with pure convection air ovens capable of burning boards and pizza. | | | | I too like machines as the SRT 2100 though it's just too damn automatic and makes pin ball sounds as it robs me and my operators from pushing X-Y tables around to get alinment. Yes, I still like my old 1000 or 1100. Just can't wait to get my hands on another hot air device and go pyro. | | | | Earl Moon | | | Hey! I've got an idea --- Vapor Phase rework!! | No one's ever tried that before. Oh, wait a minute - we finally are phasing out our machine. It's been in service for over 15 years but still capable.

Actually, the concept and its reality works very well. Too bad for the $700/gallon price - but don't know how much now.

We do have one for you all to chew on. We're going through a design phase with a big player. The board is 18 by 24, or larger, and has over 30 layers at present. It is attached, even during assembly, to an aluminum heat sink. It really is a heat exchanger running fluoroinert fluid through it. We run hot fluid through it to get parts to reflow - sometimes.

Let's all keep up the good work designing what's already been done before. Maybe we can come up with a major improvement - like my/Dave's frying pan idea - if he'd ever publish the pictures I sent.

Earl Moon

reply »

Elliott

#9347

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 27 September, 1999

| | | | | Jackie's posting recently and responses to it got me to dondering. First, recollecting, we bought an IR rework station a couple million years ago. It had a IR source on a stand, a bunch of lenses, and Reynolds aluminum foil for shielding near-by components from the IR energy. We had good and bad experiences. More importantly, there was nothing better, at the time. Later, we moved on to hot air and it was good, well better. | | | | | | | | | | The following is copied for a commercial site that is referenced at the end. My reason for posting this is not with commercial intent, but to foster dialog. Get ready to rummmmmmbleeeee!!! | | | | | | | | | | Why Infra-red is superior to hot-air for SMD rework | | | | | | | | | | 1.The process closely follows the 'ideal' temperature profile for removing SMD components. That is, a gradual (2 degree/sec) temperature soak with a short peak at the reflow point. Hot-air devices tend to 'nuke' the devices off the board, with its attendant problems. | | | | | 2.Hand-held hot-air devices only locally heat the area around the component, which can lead to delamination of the PCB. Bench mount hot air systems can exhibit similar characteristics, locally heating the area around the SMD. If the temperature gradient is too high for the PCB being worked on, delamination (the PCB layers separating) or PCB warping will occur. The PDR products preheat the entire PCB, so only a small temperature gradient occurs around the component even at reflow temperatures. | | | | | 3.Adjacent components (especially light-weight chip caps or resistors) tend to blow away with the air flow, especially if trying to rework a large component placed next to the light-weight component. There is no air blowing with IR. (Try finding a 1005 (1 x 0.5mm) component after it has blown away) | | | | | 4.SolderLight is non-contact IR so the problem of access to the component usually associated with densely populated PCB's is not a problem and you can see the component at all times. | | | | | 5.PDRs IR system can rework all SMD components. I include SMD fine pitch connectors, which are near impossible to rework using hot air or contact methods, SMD sockets, and components with their terminations under the body of the component (BGA's and FlipChips to name two). Similar to the recommended manufacturing techniques, SolderLight uses a safe combination of heat energy from both sides of the PCB, instead of driving all of the heat through the component. | | | | | | | | | | The last point is most important, the process allows for any SMD component now available, or conceivably available. Because SMD components are made for mass soldering techniques, and PDR's IR rework system re-creates a temperature profile similar to the profile used in manufacturing, all SMD components are catered for. | | | | | | | | | | In summary, the SolderLight is quick and easy to use, versatile, very safe on components and PCB's, and produces extremely high quality rework. | | | | | | | | | | All Rights Reserved. Copyright, � Computronics Corporation Ltd, 1999 | | | | | | | | | OK I'll bite! | | | | This press release is pure hype. They deserve the customers they attract. I could comment in detail, however, it matters not to those of us who know better. Plus there could be possible legal consiquences. How ironic. These IR pushing marketing maniacs are "full of hot air"! | | | | My sucessors will have to pry my SRT2000 from my cold dead hands | | | | | | | | Dean | | | | | | | Dean, | | | | | | You have some mighty big hands, but I do agree. As the Dave says, focused IR goes back to far, with now best forgotten memories reborn, to be revisited. I first used focused IR in 1965 to do hybrid thick film modules and it worked well, maybe, for that as everything was on ceramic. It worked equally well, delaminating and blistering boards beyond recognition, in its production years (1973-1973) when tin lead fusing was all the rage in board shops. | | | | | | There's really no need to fight over this boys and girls. Let those board/component burner types have their say. Let the younger generations find delignt in seeing boards smell and look like popcorn. It will be good for them, though a bit costly. | | | | | | Non of us can forget, in the mid-80's how Vitronics turned focused IR into convection type ovens using their proprietary "foil" intermediate transformation stuff to make hot air. Then Steve Dow and his crew set about to make Conceptronic a household board burning name. Now look at us with pure convection air ovens capable of burning boards and pizza. | | | | | | I too like machines as the SRT 2100 though it's just too damn automatic and makes pin ball sounds as it robs me and my operators from pushing X-Y tables around to get alinment. Yes, I still like my old 1000 or 1100. Just can't wait to get my hands on another hot air device and go pyro. | | | | | | Earl Moon | | | | | Hey! I've got an idea --- Vapor Phase rework!! | | | No one's ever tried that before. Oh, wait a minute - we finally are phasing out our machine. It's been in service for over 15 years but still capable. | | Actually, the concept and its reality works very well. Too bad for the $700/gallon price - but don't know how much now. | | We do have one for you all to chew on. We're going through a design phase with a big player. The board is 18 by 24, or larger, and has over 30 layers at present. It is attached, even during assembly, to an aluminum heat sink. It really is a heat exchanger running fluoroinert fluid through it. We run hot fluid through it to get parts to reflow - sometimes. | | Let's all keep up the good work designing what's already been done before. Maybe we can come up with a major improvement - like my/Dave's frying pan idea - if he'd ever publish the pictures I sent. | | Earl Moon | I know of a new air system that works great on thick boards. It's hands-on and easy and doesn't burn boards.

reply »

Earl Moon

#9348

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 27 September, 1999

| | | | | | Jackie's posting recently and responses to it got me to dondering. First, recollecting, we bought an IR rework station a couple million years ago. It had a IR source on a stand, a bunch of lenses, and Reynolds aluminum foil for shielding near-by components from the IR energy. We had good and bad experiences. More importantly, there was nothing better, at the time. Later, we moved on to hot air and it was good, well better. | | | | | | | | | | | | The following is copied for a commercial site that is referenced at the end. My reason for posting this is not with commercial intent, but to foster dialog. Get ready to rummmmmmbleeeee!!! | | | | | | | | | | | | Why Infra-red is superior to hot-air for SMD rework | | | | | | | | | | | | 1.The process closely follows the 'ideal' temperature profile for removing SMD components. That is, a gradual (2 degree/sec) temperature soak with a short peak at the reflow point. Hot-air devices tend to 'nuke' the devices off the board, with its attendant problems. | | | | | | 2.Hand-held hot-air devices only locally heat the area around the component, which can lead to delamination of the PCB. Bench mount hot air systems can exhibit similar characteristics, locally heating the area around the SMD. If the temperature gradient is too high for the PCB being worked on, delamination (the PCB layers separating) or PCB warping will occur. The PDR products preheat the entire PCB, so only a small temperature gradient occurs around the component even at reflow temperatures. | | | | | | 3.Adjacent components (especially light-weight chip caps or resistors) tend to blow away with the air flow, especially if trying to rework a large component placed next to the light-weight component. There is no air blowing with IR. (Try finding a 1005 (1 x 0.5mm) component after it has blown away) | | | | | | 4.SolderLight is non-contact IR so the problem of access to the component usually associated with densely populated PCB's is not a problem and you can see the component at all times. | | | | | | 5.PDRs IR system can rework all SMD components. I include SMD fine pitch connectors, which are near impossible to rework using hot air or contact methods, SMD sockets, and components with their terminations under the body of the component (BGA's and FlipChips to name two). Similar to the recommended manufacturing techniques, SolderLight uses a safe combination of heat energy from both sides of the PCB, instead of driving all of the heat through the component. | | | | | | | | | | | | The last point is most important, the process allows for any SMD component now available, or conceivably available. Because SMD components are made for mass soldering techniques, and PDR's IR rework system re-creates a temperature profile similar to the profile used in manufacturing, all SMD components are catered for. | | | | | | | | | | | | In summary, the SolderLight is quick and easy to use, versatile, very safe on components and PCB's, and produces extremely high quality rework. | | | | | | | | | | | | All Rights Reserved. Copyright, � Computronics Corporation Ltd, 1999 | | | | | | | | | | | OK I'll bite! | | | | | This press release is pure hype. They deserve the customers they attract. I could comment in detail, however, it matters not to those of us who know better. Plus there could be possible legal consiquences. How ironic. These IR pushing marketing maniacs are "full of hot air"! | | | | | My sucessors will have to pry my SRT2000 from my cold dead hands | | | | | | | | | | Dean | | | | | | | | | Dean, | | | | | | | | You have some mighty big hands, but I do agree. As the Dave says, focused IR goes back to far, with now best forgotten memories reborn, to be revisited. I first used focused IR in 1965 to do hybrid thick film modules and it worked well, maybe, for that as everything was on ceramic. It worked equally well, delaminating and blistering boards beyond recognition, in its production years (1973-1973) when tin lead fusing was all the rage in board shops. | | | | | | | | There's really no need to fight over this boys and girls. Let those board/component burner types have their say. Let the younger generations find delignt in seeing boards smell and look like popcorn. It will be good for them, though a bit costly. | | | | | | | | Non of us can forget, in the mid-80's how Vitronics turned focused IR into convection type ovens using their proprietary "foil" intermediate transformation stuff to make hot air. Then Steve Dow and his crew set about to make Conceptronic a household board burning name. Now look at us with pure convection air ovens capable of burning boards and pizza. | | | | | | | | I too like machines as the SRT 2100 though it's just too damn automatic and makes pin ball sounds as it robs me and my operators from pushing X-Y tables around to get alinment. Yes, I still like my old 1000 or 1100. Just can't wait to get my hands on another hot air device and go pyro. | | | | | | | | Earl Moon | | | | | | | Hey! I've got an idea --- Vapor Phase rework!! | | | | | No one's ever tried that before. Oh, wait a minute - we finally are phasing out our machine. It's been in service for over 15 years but still capable. | | | | Actually, the concept and its reality works very well. Too bad for the $700/gallon price - but don't know how much now. | | | | We do have one for you all to chew on. We're going through a design phase with a big player. The board is 18 by 24, or larger, and has over 30 layers at present. It is attached, even during assembly, to an aluminum heat sink. It really is a heat exchanger running fluoroinert fluid through it. We run hot fluid through it to get parts to reflow - sometimes. | | | | Let's all keep up the good work designing what's already been done before. Maybe we can come up with a major improvement - like my/Dave's frying pan idea - if he'd ever publish the pictures I sent. | | | | Earl Moon | | | I know of a new air system that works great on thick boards. It's hands-on and easy and doesn't burn boards. | AND - the system is?

MoonMan

reply »

#9349

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 28 September, 1999

| | | | | | | Jackie's posting recently and responses to it got me to dondering. First, recollecting, we bought an IR rework station a couple million years ago. It had a IR source on a stand, a bunch of lenses, and Reynolds aluminum foil for shielding near-by components from the IR energy. We had good and bad experiences. More importantly, there was nothing better, at the time. Later, we moved on to hot air and it was good, well better. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The following is copied for a commercial site that is referenced at the end. My reason for posting this is not with commercial intent, but to foster dialog. Get ready to rummmmmmbleeeee!!! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Why Infra-red is superior to hot-air for SMD rework | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1.The process closely follows the 'ideal' temperature profile for removing SMD components. That is, a gradual (2 degree/sec) temperature soak with a short peak at the reflow point. Hot-air devices tend to 'nuke' the devices off the board, with its attendant problems. | | | | | | | 2.Hand-held hot-air devices only locally heat the area around the component, which can lead to delamination of the PCB. Bench mount hot air systems can exhibit similar characteristics, locally heating the area around the SMD. If the temperature gradient is too high for the PCB being worked on, delamination (the PCB layers separating) or PCB warping will occur. The PDR products preheat the entire PCB, so only a small temperature gradient occurs around the component even at reflow temperatures. | | | | | | | 3.Adjacent components (especially light-weight chip caps or resistors) tend to blow away with the air flow, especially if trying to rework a large component placed next to the light-weight component. There is no air blowing with IR. (Try finding a 1005 (1 x 0.5mm) component after it has blown away) | | | | | | | 4.SolderLight is non-contact IR so the problem of access to the component usually associated with densely populated PCB's is not a problem and you can see the component at all times. | | | | | | | 5.PDRs IR system can rework all SMD components. I include SMD fine pitch connectors, which are near impossible to rework using hot air or contact methods, SMD sockets, and components with their terminations under the body of the component (BGA's and FlipChips to name two). Similar to the recommended manufacturing techniques, SolderLight uses a safe combination of heat energy from both sides of the PCB, instead of driving all of the heat through the component. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The last point is most important, the process allows for any SMD component now available, or conceivably available. Because SMD components are made for mass soldering techniques, and PDR's IR rework system re-creates a temperature profile similar to the profile used in manufacturing, all SMD components are catered for. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In summary, the SolderLight is quick and easy to use, versatile, very safe on components and PCB's, and produces extremely high quality rework. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | All Rights Reserved. Copyright, � Computronics Corporation Ltd, 1999 | | | | | | | | | | | | | OK I'll bite! | | | | | | This press release is pure hype. They deserve the customers they attract. I could comment in detail, however, it matters not to those of us who know better. Plus there could be possible legal consiquences. How ironic. These IR pushing marketing maniacs are "full of hot air"! | | | | | | My sucessors will have to pry my SRT2000 from my cold dead hands | | | | | | | | | | | | Dean | | | | | | | | | | | Dean, | | | | | | | | | | You have some mighty big hands, but I do agree. As the Dave says, focused IR goes back to far, with now best forgotten memories reborn, to be revisited. I first used focused IR in 1965 to do hybrid thick film modules and it worked well, maybe, for that as everything was on ceramic. It worked equally well, delaminating and blistering boards beyond recognition, in its production years (1973-1973) when tin lead fusing was all the rage in board shops. | | | | | | | | | | There's really no need to fight over this boys and girls. Let those board/component burner types have their say. Let the younger generations find delignt in seeing boards smell and look like popcorn. It will be good for them, though a bit costly. | | | | | | | | | | Non of us can forget, in the mid-80's how Vitronics turned focused IR into convection type ovens using their proprietary "foil" intermediate transformation stuff to make hot air. Then Steve Dow and his crew set about to make Conceptronic a household board burning name. Now look at us with pure convection air ovens capable of burning boards and pizza. | | | | | | | | | | I too like machines as the SRT 2100 though it's just too damn automatic and makes pin ball sounds as it robs me and my operators from pushing X-Y tables around to get alinment. Yes, I still like my old 1000 or 1100. Just can't wait to get my hands on another hot air device and go pyro. | | | | | | | | | | Earl Moon | | | | | | | | | Hey! I've got an idea --- Vapor Phase rework!! | | | | | | | No one's ever tried that before. Oh, wait a minute - we finally are phasing out our machine. It's been in service for over 15 years but still capable. | | | | | | Actually, the concept and its reality works very well. Too bad for the $700/gallon price - but don't know how much now. | | | | | | We do have one for you all to chew on. We're going through a design phase with a big player. The board is 18 by 24, or larger, and has over 30 layers at present. It is attached, even during assembly, to an aluminum heat sink. It really is a heat exchanger running fluoroinert fluid through it. We run hot fluid through it to get parts to reflow - sometimes. | | | | | | Let's all keep up the good work designing what's already been done before. Maybe we can come up with a major improvement - like my/Dave's frying pan idea - if he'd ever publish the pictures I sent. | | | | | | Earl Moon | | | | | I know of a new air system that works great on thick boards. It's hands-on and easy and doesn't burn boards. | | | AND - the system is? | | MoonMan | Again to that vapourphase thing, it works with a special tool. It looks and acts like a crane, a tripode with a cantilever which is beeing forced upwards by a sort a of actuator filled with the same medium the vapourphase is run. Attached with doublesided tape to the component to be removed the medium expands as the solder is going into liquidous state and the lift removes the component. I had that thing to try and the costs about 1,5K. Disadvantage: You have to remove all parts that doesn�t stand the reflow first and you add complete solderingcycles to the whole unit. If the rework has to be done after SMT only it�s a great choice.

Wolfgang

reply »

Brian

#9350

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 28 September, 1999

| | | | | Jackie's posting recently and responses to it got me to dondering. First, recollecting, we bought an IR rework station a couple million years ago. It had a IR source on a stand, a bunch of lenses, and Reynolds aluminum foil for shielding near-by components from the IR energy. We had good and bad experiences. More importantly, there was nothing better, at the time. Later, we moved on to hot air and it was good, well better. | | | | | | | | | | The following is copied for a commercial site that is referenced at the end. My reason for posting this is not with commercial intent, but to foster dialog. Get ready to rummmmmmbleeeee!!! | | | | | | | | | | Why Infra-red is superior to hot-air for SMD rework | | | | | | | | | | 1.The process closely follows the 'ideal' temperature profile for removing SMD components. That is, a gradual (2 degree/sec) temperature soak with a short peak at the reflow point. Hot-air devices tend to 'nuke' the devices off the board, with its attendant problems. | | | | | 2.Hand-held hot-air devices only locally heat the area around the component, which can lead to delamination of the PCB. Bench mount hot air systems can exhibit similar characteristics, locally heating the area around the SMD. If the temperature gradient is too high for the PCB being worked on, delamination (the PCB layers separating) or PCB warping will occur. The PDR products preheat the entire PCB, so only a small temperature gradient occurs around the component even at reflow temperatures. | | | | | 3.Adjacent components (especially light-weight chip caps or resistors) tend to blow away with the air flow, especially if trying to rework a large component placed next to the light-weight component. There is no air blowing with IR. (Try finding a 1005 (1 x 0.5mm) component after it has blown away) | | | | | 4.SolderLight is non-contact IR so the problem of access to the component usually associated with densely populated PCB's is not a problem and you can see the component at all times. | | | | | 5.PDRs IR system can rework all SMD components. I include SMD fine pitch connectors, which are near impossible to rework using hot air or contact methods, SMD sockets, and components with their terminations under the body of the component (BGA's and FlipChips to name two). Similar to the recommended manufacturing techniques, SolderLight uses a safe combination of heat energy from both sides of the PCB, instead of driving all of the heat through the component. | | | | | | | | | | The last point is most important, the process allows for any SMD component now available, or conceivably available. Because SMD components are made for mass soldering techniques, and PDR's IR rework system re-creates a temperature profile similar to the profile used in manufacturing, all SMD components are catered for. | | | | | | | | | | In summary, the SolderLight is quick and easy to use, versatile, very safe on components and PCB's, and produces extremely high quality rework. | | | | | | | | | | All Rights Reserved. Copyright, � Computronics Corporation Ltd, 1999 | | | | | | | | | OK I'll bite! | | | | This press release is pure hype. They deserve the customers they attract. I could comment in detail, however, it matters not to those of us who know better. Plus there could be possible legal consiquences. How ironic. These IR pushing marketing maniacs are "full of hot air"! | | | | My sucessors will have to pry my SRT2000 from my cold dead hands | | | | | | | | Dean | | | | | | | Dean, | | | | | | You have some mighty big hands, but I do agree. As the Dave says, focused IR goes back to far, with now best forgotten memories reborn, to be revisited. I first used focused IR in 1965 to do hybrid thick film modules and it worked well, maybe, for that as everything was on ceramic. It worked equally well, delaminating and blistering boards beyond recognition, in its production years (1973-1973) when tin lead fusing was all the rage in board shops. | | | | | | There's really no need to fight over this boys and girls. Let those board/component burner types have their say. Let the younger generations find delignt in seeing boards smell and look like popcorn. It will be good for them, though a bit costly. | | | | | | Non of us can forget, in the mid-80's how Vitronics turned focused IR into convection type ovens using their proprietary "foil" intermediate transformation stuff to make hot air. Then Steve Dow and his crew set about to make Conceptronic a household board burning name. Now look at us with pure convection air ovens capable of burning boards and pizza. | | | | | | I too like machines as the SRT 2100 though it's just too damn automatic and makes pin ball sounds as it robs me and my operators from pushing X-Y tables around to get alinment. Yes, I still like my old 1000 or 1100. Just can't wait to get my hands on another hot air device and go pyro. | | | | | | Earl Moon | | | | | Hey! I've got an idea --- Vapor Phase rework!! | | | No one's ever tried that before. Oh, wait a minute - we finally are phasing out our machine. It's been in service for over 15 years but still capable. | | Actually, the concept and its reality works very well. Too bad for the $700/gallon price - but don't know how much now. | | We do have one for you all to chew on. We're going through a design phase with a big player. The board is 18 by 24, or larger, and has over 30 layers at present. It is attached, even during assembly, to an aluminum heat sink. It really is a heat exchanger running fluoroinert fluid through it. We run hot fluid through it to get parts to reflow - sometimes. | | Let's all keep up the good work designing what's already been done before. Maybe we can come up with a major improvement - like my/Dave's frying pan idea - if he'd ever publish the pictures I sent. | | Earl Moon | As Earl says, it has been done and is fantastically good. There was a system sold in Europe consisting essentially of a Fluorinert boiler, some armoured Teflon pipes and some nozzles, but it never took off because of the cost of the stuff, even though it was designed to eject vapour only when the pedal was pressed. However, there is another problem: the Fluorinert has a global warming potential of over 10 000. That means that for every kilogram of the stuff (and that's not a large volume, just one fill of the small boiler!) you throw at a board for reworking (and it is very difficult to recapture it for recycling), you could emit 10 TONNES of CO2 from fossil fuels instead. Now 10 tonnes of CO2 is equivalent to running a medium car about 200 000 km (or 100 000 cars going down to the local supermarket and back again). Now, the legislators of this ornery world would prefer to cut back on 1 kg of Fluorinert than 100 000 voters who want to go to the supermarket. So, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US EPA and other similar bodies throughout the world will much prefer to recommend to their parliaments, congresses, houses, dictators, what have you?, to stop non-essential emissive applications of perfluorocarbons before they will tell anyone that they must reduce the use of the internal combustion engine. After all, the votes of a few thousand potential users scattered through a country is just a drop in the ocean.

Don't forget that the Kyoto Protocol is coming into force and, although the concept is enormously badly flawed, it means that all countries will be seeking to reduce global warming emissions (and this includes a very reluctant USA which contributes about one-third of them) over the next decade. Believe me, perfluorocarbons are heavily targeted, hydrofluorocarbons and hydrofluoroethers somewhat less so, but even they are not without sin, with GWPs generally well into the hundreds. In the long run, Kyoto is going to have much more impact on us than Montreal ever did. However, I anticipate that the two Protocols will have one thing in common: they both started up mildly but their measures tighten up severely in the course of their application as more scientific evidence accumulates. So don't think you have another 10 years before anything needs to be done.

The link below gives some info on fluorocarbons, more essentially as a discussion of the impact the Kyoto Protocol will have on the electronics industry.

Best regards

Brian

reply »

Earl Moon

#9351

Re: IR Versus Hot Air - Put-Up Your Dukes | 28 September, 1999

| | | | | | | | Jackie's posting recently and responses to it got me to dondering. First, recollecting, we bought an IR rework station a couple million years ago. It had a IR source on a stand, a bunch of lenses, and Reynolds aluminum foil for shielding near-by components from the IR energy. We had good and bad experiences. More importantly, there was nothing better, at the time. Later, we moved on to hot air and it was good, well better. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The following is copied for a commercial site that is referenced at the end. My reason for posting this is not with commercial intent, but to foster dialog. Get ready to rummmmmmbleeeee!!! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Why Infra-red is superior to hot-air for SMD rework | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1.The process closely follows the 'ideal' temperature profile for removing SMD components. That is, a gradual (2 degree/sec) temperature soak with a short peak at the reflow point. Hot-air devices tend to 'nuke' the devices off the board, with its attendant problems. | | | | | | | | 2.Hand-held hot-air devices only locally heat the area around the component, which can lead to delamination of the PCB. Bench mount hot air systems can exhibit similar characteristics, locally heating the area around the SMD. If the temperature gradient is too high for the PCB being worked on, delamination (the PCB layers separating) or PCB warping will occur. The PDR products preheat the entire PCB, so only a small temperature gradient occurs around the component even at reflow temperatures. | | | | | | | | 3.Adjacent components (especially light-weight chip caps or resistors) tend to blow away with the air flow, especially if trying to rework a large component placed next to the light-weight component. There is no air blowing with IR. (Try finding a 1005 (1 x 0.5mm) component after it has blown away) | | | | | | | | 4.SolderLight is non-contact IR so the problem of access to the component usually associated with densely populated PCB's is not a problem and you can see the component at all times. | | | | | | | | 5.PDRs IR system can rework all SMD components. I include SMD fine pitch connectors, which are near impossible to rework using hot air or contact methods, SMD sockets, and components with their terminations under the body of the component (BGA's and FlipChips to name two). Similar to the recommended manufacturing techniques, SolderLight uses a safe combination of heat energy from both sides of the PCB, instead of driving all of the heat through the component. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The last point is most important, the process allows for any SMD component now available, or conceivably available. Because SMD components are made for mass soldering techniques, and PDR's IR rework system re-creates a temperature profile similar to the profile used in manufacturing, all SMD components are catered for. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In summary, the SolderLight is quick and easy to use, versatile, very safe on components and PCB's, and produces extremely high quality rework. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | All Rights Reserved. Copyright, � Computronics Corporation Ltd, 1999 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | OK I'll bite! | | | | | | | This press release is pure hype. They deserve the customers they attract. I could comment in detail, however, it matters not to those of us who know better. Plus there could be possible legal consiquences. How ironic. These IR pushing marketing maniacs are "full of hot air"! | | | | | | | My sucessors will have to pry my SRT2000 from my cold dead hands | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Dean | | | | | | | | | | | | | Dean, | | | | | | | | | | | | You have some mighty big hands, but I do agree. As the Dave says, focused IR goes back to far, with now best forgotten memories reborn, to be revisited. I first used focused IR in 1965 to do hybrid thick film modules and it worked well, maybe, for that as everything was on ceramic. It worked equally well, delaminating and blistering boards beyond recognition, in its production years (1973-1973) when tin lead fusing was all the rage in board shops. | | | | | | | | | | | | There's really no need to fight over this boys and girls. Let those board/component burner types have their say. Let the younger generations find delignt in seeing boards smell and look like popcorn. It will be good for them, though a bit costly. | | | | | | | | | | | | Non of us can forget, in the mid-80's how Vitronics turned focused IR into convection type ovens using their proprietary "foil" intermediate transformation stuff to make hot air. Then Steve Dow and his crew set about to make Conceptronic a household board burning name. Now look at us with pure convection air ovens capable of burning boards and pizza. | | | | | | | | | | | | I too like machines as the SRT 2100 though it's just too damn automatic and makes pin ball sounds as it robs me and my operators from pushing X-Y tables around to get alinment. Yes, I still like my old 1000 or 1100. Just can't wait to get my hands on another hot air device and go pyro. | | | | | | | | | | | | Earl Moon | | | | | | | | | | | Hey! I've got an idea --- Vapor Phase rework!! | | | | | | | | | No one's ever tried that before. Oh, wait a minute - we finally are phasing out our machine. It's been in service for over 15 years but still capable. | | | | | | | | Actually, the concept and its reality works very well. Too bad for the $700/gallon price - but don't know how much now. | | | | | | | | We do have one for you all to chew on. We're going through a design phase with a big player. The board is 18 by 24, or larger, and has over 30 layers at present. It is attached, even during assembly, to an aluminum heat sink. It really is a heat exchanger running fluoroinert fluid through it. We run hot fluid through it to get parts to reflow - sometimes. | | | | | | | | Let's all keep up the good work designing what's already been done before. Maybe we can come up with a major improvement - like my/Dave's frying pan idea - if he'd ever publish the pictures I sent. | | | | | | | | Earl Moon | | | | | | | I know of a new air system that works great on thick boards. It's hands-on and easy and doesn't burn boards. | | | | | AND - the system is? | | | | MoonMan | | | Again to that vapourphase thing, it works with a special tool. | It looks and acts like a crane, a tripode with a cantilever which is beeing forced upwards by a sort a of actuator filled with the same medium the vapourphase is run. Attached with doublesided tape to the component to be removed the medium expands as the solder is going into liquidous state and the lift removes the component. | I had that thing to try and the costs about 1,5K. | Disadvantage: | You have to remove all parts that doesn�t stand the reflow first and you add complete solderingcycles to the whole unit. | If the rework has to be done after SMT only it�s a great choice. | | Wolfgang | You know, this thing got off to a slow start but took off very well - about a year ago was it? Old Dave must be very happy with his little creation. I like it as well and might write something about it if someone else doesn't beat me to it - PLEASE.

MoonMan

reply »

BGA Rework Services

vacuum tweezers - manual pcb assembly