TECHNET Archives

February 2008

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:
Joe Fjelstad <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Date:
Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:06:25 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (102 lines)
 
 
Hello Robert, 
 
I trust all is well with you in the great Pacific Northwest. It has been a  
while since we've crossed paths. 
 
Thanks for taking time to pose your questions. I'd like to share my  thoughts 
with you on the subject.
 
First, I personally don't think there is any such thing as a panacea. Nor  
must the Occam process be a panacea to be considered a success, it  must simply 
fill a particular need successfully. 
 
That aside, over time there have always come along some  new technologies 
that had some advantage in some areas over some  incumbent technology or process 
solution. But in the present situation,  solder is not going to go away 
immediately because of Occam. There is  simply too much invested in equipment and 
people will want to take  advantage both of what they have and what they know. 
As one bit of supporting  evidence, I would note that you can still buy DIPs 
even though they  are clearly cannot match the size, performance or manufactured 
cost  benefits of SMT parts.     
 
As for Dr. Ron Lasky's "less than all embracing" attitude,  he is selling 
solder technology for a living and is not likely to be  supportive of any 
assembly method or process that proposes to  obviates solder's use. Dr. Ron's "meet 
the enemy at the gate and  attack the threat" approach is thus easy to 
understand (though his problem  statements are a bit off track in my  humble opinion). 
Sierra Proto is not as easy to explain  since they have been talking about 
researching the embedment of resistors  and using plating for interconnections. 
 
No worries, in either case, technologies evolve at their own pace and  there 
are those who choose to risk and drive evolution and those who choose  to play 
safe and follow. It is normal. Then again, if some folks in this  industry 
did not risk developing soldering equipment many years ago, we  would still be 
twisting wires together, so "hats off"  to those who chose to drive that early 
change from which we have all  so greatly benefited. Another good thing, at 
least in this industry,  there is room for everyone at the table even those who 
question the need to  change.
     
Back to your comments... You might have read last week that Georgia Tech  has 
just announced its own efforts to eliminate solder but that is just the  
latest. There is a growing number of house hold name companies  around the globe 
that have nascent efforts underway to examine the potential of  solderless 
assembly of their products especially in high reliability  applications. For 
example a company in Brazil has built and in  building assemblies for evaluation 
for a customer  greatly concerned about all of the problems of lead-free that 
continue to  be discussed on a daily basis in this forum.  
 
Of course, the proof will be "in the pudding" as the saying goes. and  to 
answer the question daisy chain assemblies will be run side by side with  
lead-free assemblies. Which ones will fail first? That will be seen and you  might 
have your own predictions but to be honest with you, I have never  seen anyone 
shake, mechanically shock or thermal cycle the circuits traces  off of a PCB 
and industry experience with over square aspect ratio  plated copper vias has 
been very good.
 
Ultimately, it is about have some small measure of willingness to embrace a  
little change and as the editor of one Japanese technical magazine  said to 
his readers in an article he wrote about the Occam process late last  year: 
"When evolution happens, always there is resistance". Fortunately, he was  someone 
whom it appears is in favor of change and evolution or he would not  have 
written the article.
 
I look forward to showing you some of the demonstration assemblies  that have 
been already built the next time we meet. I'll buy the beer...  :-)
 
Very best, 
Joe   
 
  

In a message dated 2/17/2008 8:05:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

I have been reading about the  OCCAM process and the rebuttal of people like 
Dr. Ron Lasky and companies  like Seirra Protr Express.  Does anyone have an 
opinion regarding the  process and what are its chances of being the panacea 
for eliminating the  lead free process?

Robert Hanson







**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2