Greetings Techet,

The company I work for is investigating the purchase of several auto 
exposure systems to be used in the innerlayer, outerlayer, and soldermask
imaging areas.  We are interested in finding out who is using these types
of systems and how are they are being used. We are interested in the 
following items:
	1)	lot sizes being imaged,
	2)	film setup procedures (time required) 
	3)	technology being produced
	4)	# of workers per machine,
	5)	film changes per hour  
	6)	cycle time per exposure

Also we would be interested in this type of equipment could be financially
justified (ie through headcount reduction, scrap/rework reduction, 
registration improvement)  We are currently struggling with finding an
acceptable IRR for this equipment and would like to get some further 
ideas on the topic of justification.  One idea we came up with was the 
reduction of annular ring and how that would save us money in the drill 
room and on the plating floor.  Because these systems have improved 
registration +/-25um, you should be able reduce your annular ring by using 
a larger drill size. (big drills cost less than small drills)  This would 
in turn decrease your effective aspect ratio and hopefully widen your 
ability to plate these holes. (it is easier to plate a 3:1 AR board than a 
4:1AR board) Is this a valid assumption?  

If any of you out there have any feedback it would be very much 
appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Josh Moody
Process Engineer
Merix Corp.
[log in to unmask]

***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to:           *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text.        *
***************************************************************************