Hi Phil
Wouldn't it be easier to specify on the PWB documentation an approved
vendor list and let the CM take it from there? That way you direct who
makes the PWB but the CM can work their requirements.
regards,
- Graham
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Nutting
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] singulation or depanelization of circuit boards
Jack,
Some of this goes back to "once burned, twice shy". We have had issues
with bare boards purchased from the CM's board house. Solution: we buy
the boards from our preferred vendors.
Each CM has different equipment and therefore different requirements for
panelization, stencils and then depanelization. Now throw in we might
use different CM's to build the same boards. Refere to my previous
statement. Grrrrrrrrr!
Our documentation suggests that when purchasing the boards the targeted
CM should have input on their needs/requirements. Doesn't always work.
Sigh.
Is this issue unique to us or do other OEMs experience much the same
issues?
Phil
From: Jack Olson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:23 AM
To: Phil Nutting
Cc: TechNet E-Mail Forum
Subject: Re: [TN] singulation or depanelization of circuit boards
Well, in that case, I should make one more point:
As a designer, one of my concerns is that, by letting the manufacturer
panelize, they are going to focus on their own considerations and not so
much on the material yield (the most boards you can get out of the same
size panel). Especially in a "cost+plus" situation where the board is
considered a component, and gets a corresponding percentage markup for
the assembler who buys it, adding cost is actually a benefit for them
(I'm not sure how common that is, but I have been there).
I've even experienced a company that insisted on making some pallets in
multiples of ten because the orders were typically in multiples of ten,
(and "they are easier to count").
I'm NOT kidding...
best wishes,
Jack
.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Phil Nutting
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Jack,
Chuckling, both! I'm saddled with the "system", but want to find a
better way (Oh ya, the industry standard).
I "get it", but my thoughts (based upon my 40 years of experience and
the info of all my knowledgeable friends on Technet) are not always
accepted by those making the rules.
What you and others have provide is going to be used to attempt to show
them the light.
Wish me luck.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf
Of Jack Olson
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [TN] singulation or depanelization of circuit boards
It seems like your question contains two different preferences
1) "we insist on supplying the bare boards" (which means you force your
supplier to live with whatever panel/pallette design decisions you've
made)
2) "like to be able to send gerbers... receive perfect product" (which
allows them some flexibility in adapting your design to their process
parameters)
so, which is it?
If you chose the latter in the past, and your supplier's inexperience
caused some "learning curve" waste or yield problems, you shouldn't have
to pay or care about that, and they should be pro-active about
fine-tuning it (especially since you have given them the freedom to
palletize the way they want it).
Regardless, They should still be shipping you perfect product. That's MY
opinion, anyway.
onward thru the fog,
Jack
.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:13:14 -0400, Phil Nutting
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>As we move forward we are finding that each Contract Manufacturer wants
panelization and depanelization requirements that are unique to them.
Part of the problem is we insist on supplying the bare boards due to
previous issues with past CMs. Some CMs destroyed boards that were
V-grooved, some can't make the mouse bites work. I'm looking for
guidance on solving this.
>
>I'd like to be able to send the gerbers to the CM, have them get the
panels made, build them, singulate them and ship me "perfect" product.
Am I asking too much?
>
>Phil Nutting
>Design for Manufacturing Engineer
>Kaiser Systems, Inc.
>126 Sohier Road
>Beverly, MA 01915
>Phone: 978-922-9300 x1310<tel:978-922-9300%20x1310>
>Fax: 978-922-8374<tel:978-922-8374>
>e-mail:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:pn
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>www.kaisersystems.com<http://www.kaisersystems.com><http://www.kaisersy
>stems.com>
>www.linkedin.com/in/philnutting<http://www.linkedin.com/in/philnutting>
><http://www.linkedin.com/in/philnutting>
>
>
>________________________________
>Note: All the information contained in this e-mail and its attachments
is proprietary to Kaiser Systems, Inc. and it may not be reproduced
without the prior written permission of sender. If you have received
this email in error, please immediately return it to sender and delete
the copy you received.
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
