TECHNET Archives

August 1997

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Robert Schetty <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet Mail Forum.
Date:
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 22:31:38 UT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Agree with your points - in general the best wire bondable Ni/Au surface is
clean, rough but not too rough, and uncontaminated.  I have no quantitative
"roughness" information, unfortunately.

Rob Schetty
LeaRonal, Inc.

----------
From:  TechNet Mail Forum on behalf of Paul Stolar
Sent:  Thursday, August 14, 1997 6:10 PM
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject:  [TECHNET] Re[2]: [TECHNET] Finish for wirebond

     One more problem is the quality of the gold. I had more problems with
     'shiny' gold. It is shiny because they add Hg to it. This plays havoc
     with wire bonding.

     I generally did not have problems bonding to smooth surfaces, assuming
     the gold was bonded to the nickel. That brings up another point,
     sometimes we saw contamination at the Ni-Au interface.


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: [TECHNET] Finish for wirebond
Author:  <[log in to unmask]> at internet


ATOM RSS1 RSS2