Mr.Gross: I have to disagree with your statements regarding "dip"
processing of OSP's as "NOT good practice" compared to conveyorized
processing. Control of OSP immersion processing is not harder than
conveyorized. Chemical analysis and replenishment is basicaly the same.
Immersion processing can be used with a  timer/control system to obtain
repeatable chemical exposure times. Since chemistry doesn"t know up from down
or left from right full immersion creates a uniform reaction across the face
and top and bottom of the panel. Issues such as clogged nozzles, uneven spray
patterns, top/bottom impingement, chemical carry over, areation of chemistry
etc. are eliminated {flood head technology can help).I believe the big
advantage of conveyorized processing is it's ability to handle smaller routed
out parts.
        Both types of processing work well when setup and controlled
properly. Please don't confuse immersion processing with low tech vs. low
complexity. Poor control and quality are more a function of lack of
commitment than equipment :-).
                                                Regards
                                                        Michael Barmuta
                                                        Staff Engineer
                                                        Fluke Electronics
                                                        Everett Wa.
                                                        425-356-6076
On Sat, 9 Aug 1997 05:32:45 -0700 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> From: [log in to unmask]> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 05:32:45 -0700
> Subject: Re: [TECHNET] FAB: OSP COATINGS
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> I agree with the cost issue..however, to apply an OSP with
> "dip" tanks and the like is NOT good practice.  It's too
> hard to control the process.  A conveyorized timed process
> will gaurantee coverage, quality, etc. At one time, the
> supplier of the materials would not sell to anyone who did
> not have proper controls.  I don't know what the situation is
> today.