I recommend You to pass 100 transformer through Reflow soldering (without
PCB, on a plate), check them through electrical test and than pass them
through the cleaning process and than check them ET.
If the PCB pass 2 reflow soldering process, pass them the same.
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Theodore J Tontis <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Do you know how the manufacturer of the transformer is testing them prior
> to shipping? Are they 100% tested, functional and or hi-pot?
>
> I don't recall if you mentioned if samples were taken directly from the
> reel (prior to placement) and tested if so, what were the results?
>
> After replacing the transformer do the boards pass test? Are they the same
> transformers from the reel in question or from a different reel? Functional
> or ICT?
>
> Have samples been sent to the manufacturer for evaluation?
>
> Has the test system or test operators been checked out that damage isn't
> being introduced at test?
>
> Ted T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Popielarski
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:11 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] SMT transformer failures
>
> Robert,
>
> These are VERY small SMT transformers (~20 would fit on a penny). No tape
> between layers, the wire gage is >40AWG as the wire measures approx..
> 0.003" including the insulation. The wires (2) are would around the bobbin
> in parallel.
>
> We don't test this material at incoming, since it's on tape & reel, it
> would be difficult to return to same, so Hi-pot testing degradation is not
> a possibility.
>
> Replacing the transformer by hand has consistent failure rate to the
> original first pass. I've also examined them on the X-ray system (Dage
> Diamond) and see noting out of the ordinary before and/or after failure
> and/or replacement.
>
>
> 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: Robert Kondner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 8:21 AM
> To: 'TechNet E-Mail Forum'; Ed Popielarski
> Subject: RE: [TN] SMT transformer failures
>
> Ok, That says there was not only a failure of the wire insulation but also
> of any tape layers between the windings.
>
> So three failures in the same location:
>
> Primary Wire Insulation
>
> Secondary Wire Insulation
>
> insulation tape between layers. (I assume this was there)
>
> Sounds like someone was doing a high pot test, destroying the
> transformers, and then putting them in the "Good" bin? I doubt that.
>
> Now another likely failure is a circuit failure where they are being used.
> A simple short on a board or other assembly / component failure might
> result in excessive current melting down a section of internal windings.
> That would be my guess. This might also explain the "Bad" insulation you
> saw coming off the wires.
>
> Bob K.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Popielarski
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] SMT transformer failures
>
> Functional test fails on power up (no DCV SEPIC app) and ohmmeter confirms
> short between primary and secondary windings. Disassembled the transformer
> under a microscope, it's only 5mm X 5mm including the outer frame.
>
> 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=0.0
> 11188,0.033023&ctz=420&t=m&z=16&iwloc=A
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Kondner
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 5:42 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] SMT transformer failures
>
> I would ask again:
>
> What lead someone to suspect a transformer as bad? What lead to
> disassembly in the first place?
>
> Bob K.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Vischulis
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 7:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] SMT transformer failures
>
> Yes, this is a polyurethane based insulation system. My experience is with
> MW16C (polyimide). Based on general knowledge, polyurethanes are not very
> sensitive to solvents. I think that the fuzzy finish you observed is
> failure of the wire insulation because the coils are impregnated and the
> adhesion within the insulation is less than the adhesion within the
> impregnant.
>
> My experience is that breaks inside the coil are due to flaws in the
> conductor. One failure mechanism is from expansion and contraction from
> thermal cycling. Usually it takes small diameter (39 awg) and some pretty
> extreme conditions with hundreds of cycles to cause this to happen. Another
> possibility is defective wire or handling damage. Does the manufacturer
> have any record of unplanned interruptions during the winding cycle? Is
> the manufacturer purchasing from a low cost source?
>
> Sorry I can't offer more.
>
> Don Vischulis
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Ed Popielarski
> > <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > NEMA MW82-C Class 180 C
> >
> > 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: Don Vischulis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 4:10 AM
> > To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Ed Popielarski
> > Subject: Re: [TN] SMT transformer failures
> >
> > Any idea what type insulation is on the magnet wire or the NEMA
> designation of the magnet wire?
> >
> > Don Vischulis
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On Oct 30, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Ed Popielarski
> >> <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Good Morning Esteemed Colleagues,
> >>
> >> We have recently been experiencing increasing failure rates of an SMT
> (5.2 X 5.2 X 1.2 mm) transformer. The first build in September showed
> about 6% fallout. Subsequent builds from the same reel have increased to
> 25% most recently. These components have been stored in a normal ambient
> environment.
> I have verified and re-verified reflow conditions are well within
> manufacturer's specifications (confirmed by the manufacturer).
> >>
> >> When this problem was first identified, I "dissected" one of the
> >> failing
> devices and found the wire pair (primary and secondary) in good condition
> on the outer windings, but as I continued to unwind down to about 1/3 deep,
> the insulation began to stick both side by side and to subsequent layers
> which would "fuzz" as it was pulled apart with exposed copper implied.
> >>
> >> I am beginning to suspect "cold flow", a problem that was prevalent
> >> in
> the days of wire wrapped backplanes.
> >>
> >> Has anyone experienced a similar condition? The manufacturer has been
> "working on it" since mid-September and has yet to provide any root cause
> and/or solution.
> >>
> >> Any insight would be appreciated.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ed Popielarski
> >> Engineering Manager
> >>
> >> [Description: FullLogo]
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> _____________________________________________________________________
> >> _ 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]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
--
Best Regards,
*Reuven Rokah*
Mobile: 972-52-6012018
Tel: 972-3-9360688
Fax: 076-5100674
<http://www.rokah-technologies.com/>[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
www.rokah-technologies.com
**
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary of Rokah
Technologies. If you have received this transmission in error, please
inform me by e-mail, phone or fax, and then please delete all of the
original files and all other copies exist.
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
