TECHNET Archives

November 2000

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:
"<Rudy Sedlak>" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:44:23 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
Scott:

I suspect that I am telling you the obvious, however, that aside...

Most people putting down Gold for non-bondable applications use immersion
Gold.

People putting down Gold for wire bondable applications use electroless Gold.

(And you know the difference, I assume)

It would seem that you should be able to just run an electroless Gold bath
for a shorter time to get the minimums required for non-bondable applications.

Further, you can probably rest assured that an immersion plating bath is
always going to be much more stable than an electroless bath, because it
needs an appropriate substrate to plate.   Further, an immersion bath is self
limiting, and even if it plates on some debris in the bath, it will plate up,
and stop, whereas an electroless bath keeps plating, essentially forever.

I hope I did not insult you by stating what may have been obvious.

Rudy Sedlak
RD Chemical Company

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2