Lance,
Great points thank you.
You brought up another concern that I have regarding dimples. If there is a second layer of cap plating, like this one, that covers the initial dimple, and it turn flattens it out, does the underlying dimple get evaluated? My impression (pun) is that the dimple criteria is there for the outer surface flatness and the dimple under the final plate would not affect that.
Russ
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lance A Auer
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Cap Plating - Separation, dimple, void or acceptable?
Russ,
I think that each step associated with creating this condition needs to be looked individually to determine their conformance. Once that is done, if everything has been deemed "conforming", the construction should be considered to be conforming.
For the initial filling and cap plating:
Does the depth of the "dimple" and the cap plating thickness meet the specified requirements?
If so, the initial element of the structure is conforming.
For the final cap plating step:
Is there any plating separation?
In this case, I wouldn't consider the cap plating that exists over resin to be a plating separation because resin from the next lamination step would be expected to fill any depression (dimples) in the existing structure. I'd evaluate the areas where the new cap plating had an opportunity to plate to existing to determine whether the plating was separated.
From the looks of the picture, I wouldn't call the condition plating separation, but I don't know if the initial hole fill and plating cap thickness meet their requirements.
Thanks,
Lance
From: Russ Shepherd <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 03/25/2015 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Cap Plating - Separation, dimple, void
or acceptable?
Sent by: IPC-600-6012 <[log in to unmask]>
We would normally call it plating separation, therefore non-conforming as well. I am getting some pushback, especially if it is solid fill material (no gap), similar to an inclusion, and plating thicknesses are met.
Russ
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Mahanna
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Cap Plating - Separation, dimple, void or acceptable?
We call it nonconforming for separation, as the design activity likely envisioned it as plated together.
Limitations need to be placed upon any caveat, as it can encroach onto the surface, and it interplays with external registration requirements.
There was a small group of people working on a proposal for 6012D, but it got moved down the list.
Robisan is currently in the middle of some program disagreement on this issue too.
We have been stalling (leaving it as nonconforming), in an attempt to make sure design activities have reviewed, understand and limit the caveats.
If 6012 can take it up quickly, maybe we can find an industry standard answer.
Chris
Chris Mahanna
Robisan Laboratory Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Russ Shepherd
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [IPC-600-6012] Cap Plating - Separation, dimple, void or acceptable?
Hello all,
I have been coming across a condition lately that many board suppliers are saying is unavoidable. The condition in the picture attached where there is more than one cap plating process with a hole fill (of other holes) in between. What's happening ins there is a deposit of fill material on the surface of the first cap plating layer getting covered by the second cap plating process. How does this get addressed? As an inclusion, separation, dimple, plating void, or non-issue?
[cid:[log in to unmask]]
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Russ Shepherd
Vice President of Operations
MICROTEK LABORATORIES
(714) 999-1616
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
