TECHNET Archives

August 2010

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:
"Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)
Date:
Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:49:03 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1920 lines)
IMHO, Pauls view to him was a piece of Cake; whereas my assumption it
was a slice of PI.

Dewey

 

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Werner Engelmaier
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

 

 

 Hi Paul,

Years ago [Once upon a time....!?!] there was an IBM paper [from a MN
location, I think-don't ask me for a reference], that showed that you
had to have a 90% physical separation crack to result in a 10%
resistance increase. This has been confirmed less rigorously many
times-that is why you had so many people wondering about your statement.

Werner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]>

To: [log in to unmask]

Sent: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 9:28 am

Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

 

 

Hi Werner,

 

 

 

A number of defects like that still caused a 10% change in resistance.

 

Crack or separation not withstanding, objective measurement of

 

resistance change trumps the more subjective microsection evaluation.

 

Maybe we are on the wrong angle to see the full extent of the damage.

 

 

 

I do know that small corner cracks have produced large changes in

 

resistance. Failing corner cracks may or may not extend across the full

 

thickness of the copper.

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Paul Reid 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

 

From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Werner

 

Engelmaier

 

Sent: August 17, 2010 8:22 PM

 

To: [log in to unmask]

 

Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

 

 

 

 Denise/Paul,

 

I am with Denise on this one-twice.

 

First, this separation would never cause a 10% resistance increase even

 

if it goes around all 360 degrees.

 

Second, this is not a crack, but a separation.

 

Werner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

 

From: Denise Chevalier <[log in to unmask]>

 

To: [log in to unmask]

 

Sent: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 2:25 pm

 

Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

 

 

 

 

 

Again I am not sure I would call this a crack.  The initial deposit is

 

 

 

not connected to the foil (rounded) but does not appear to have

 

 

 

"cracked".  I am also surprised you lost 10% resistance due to this

 

 

 

defect.  It appears you have plenty of connection from the surface into

 

 

 

the hole wall.  Are you sure this was the cause for the loss of

 

 

 

resistance?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Denise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Denise J Chevalier

 

 

 

Amphenol Printed Circuits

 

 

 

Quality Engineer

 

 

 

Phone - 603-324-4530

 

 

 

Fax - 603-386-6442

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments,

 

 

 

is for the sole use of the

 

 

 

intended recipient(s) and contains confidential and privileged

 

 

 

information. Any unauthorized review, use,

 

 

 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended

 

 

 

recipient, please reply to the sender by

 

 

 

email and destroy all copies of the original message.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

 

 

 

From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Reid

 

 

 

Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:04 PM

 

 

 

To: [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is a corner crack that produced a 10% increase in resistance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if the attachment will make it to the forum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am CC Chris with this incase it does not get posted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are having problems with our email.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely, 

 

 

 

Paul Reid 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program Coordinator 

 

 

 

PWB Interconnect Solutions Inc. 

 

 

 

235 Stafford Rd., West, Unit 103 

 

 

 

Nepean, Ontario 

 

 

 

Canada, K2H 9C1 

 

 

 

613 596 4244 ext. 229 

 

 

 

Skype paul_reid_pwb 

 

 

 

[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

 

 

 

From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francis

 

 

 

Byle

 

 

 

Sent: August 17, 2010 1:30 PM

 

 

 

To: [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Careful, you'll give Chris a big head...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

 

 

 

From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brown,

 

 

 

Elaine

 

 

 

Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:25

 

 

 

To: [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed I am confident enough in Chris's knowledge of 6012 that we would

 

 

 

not be having the 

 

 

 

discussion if it were not visible before microetch, then the

 

 

 

microetching must be done to 

 

 

 

assess whether the separation extends beyond the plane of the foil,

 

 

 

which it does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

 

 

 

From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Monarchio,

 

 

 

James

 

 

 

Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:12 PM

 

 

 

To: [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with Matt, you need to determine if there is indeed separation

 

 

 

first and inspection without etching is a good way to do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

 

 

 

From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Byrne,

 

 

 

Matthew J (US SSA)

 

 

 

Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:54 AM

 

 

 

To: [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The possibility of a separation at the knee between plating layers needs

 

 

 

to be evaluated without microetching the cross section mount.  If no

 

 

 

separation is found then no defect should be called out.  Microetching

 

 

 

helps in failure analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matt Byrne

 

 

 

Manufacturing Engineer, PWB Technology

 

 

 

BAE Systems, Room 795

 

 

 

600 Main St, Johnson City, NY 13790

 

 

 

607-770-2267

 

 

 

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

 

 

 

From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brown,

 

 

 

Elaine

 

 

 

Sent: August 17, 2010 6:27 AM

 

 

 

To: [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is non-conforming for both the crack and the plating separation.

 

 

 

The second picture is not so clear cut.  If indeed the area at the knee

 

 

 

is separation it is rejectable. 

 

 

 

If it is differential microetching, it is not.  Hard to tell from the

 

 

 

photo. 

 

 

 

I do not think we have any criteria for burning.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elaine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

 

 

 

From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris

 

 

 

Mahanna

 

 

 

Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 1:19 PM

 

 

 

To: [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

Subject: EXTERNAL: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Everyone,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attached is a picture of a thru-hole corner after thermal stress.  The

 

 

 

plating is pulse.  I believe the corner was 'burnt' because of the

 

 

 

geometry of the (conformant) negative etchback.  All the corners show

 

 

 

burn; some show blisters; only this one cracked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your opinion, what are the non-conformance(s) if any?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

 

 

 

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or

 

 

 

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

 

 

 

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or

 

 

 

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

 

 

 

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or

 

 

 

[log in to unmask] 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTICE:  This email message is for the sole use of the intended

 

 

 

recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.

 

 

 

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.

 

 

 

If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by

 

 

 

reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

 

 

 

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or

 

 

 

[log in to unmask] 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

 

 

 

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or

 

 

 

[log in to unmask] 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

 

 

 

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or

 

 

 

[log in to unmask] 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

 

 

 

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or

 

 

 

[log in to unmask] 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

 

 

 

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or

 

[log in to unmask] 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

 

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or

 

[log in to unmask] 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

 

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask] 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask] 

______________________________________________________________________

 

---------------------------------------------------

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

-----------------------------------------------------


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------
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