There may be a medical explanation, he may have relation genetically with
Caesar Claudius...he stammered
Inge
On 14 December 2012 19:39, Graham Collins <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Wait a minute here! If Doug is Emperor, why does he say "it depends" so
> much??? For royalty all pronouncements are supposed to be absolute truths!
>
> Imposter, I say.
>
> regards,
>
> Graham Collins
> Senior Process Engineer
> Sunsel Systems
> (902) 444-7867 ext 211
>
>
> On 12/14/2012 12:33 PM, Steven Creswick wrote:
>
>> Is "Mountain Dew" related to moonshine in its effects upon the human body?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
>> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:28 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [TN] Component issue - epoxy die attach
>>
>> Well, maybe not a Coke, but I have seen the masses arriving at the Technet
>> expos and forums toting cases of Mountain Dew in order to pay appropriate
>> tribute to Emperor Pauls.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Douglas Pauls
>> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 10:09 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [TN] Component issue - epoxy die attach
>>
>> Well, I have been Emporer now for 8 years and have yet to get a burger and
>> coke out of it.
>>
>> Doug Pauls
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 12/14/2012 10:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: [TN] Component issue - epoxy die attach
>> Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>>
>> Emperor Doug,
>>
>>
>> Wow! TechNet is so wonderful!
>>
>>
>> Not only can you get all kinds of information and opinions on just about
>> everything under the sun, but you can get titles too!!
>>
>>
>> How much more do I need to get a burger & coke?
>>
>>
>> Steve C
>>
>>
>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:dopauls@**rockwellcollins.com<[log in to unmask]>
>> ]
>> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:12 AM
>> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Steven Creswick
>> Subject: Re: [TN] Component issue - epoxy die attach
>>
>>
>> Steve,
>> Hell, take the Title and have some fun with it.
>>
>> At IPC, I decided that General Chairman, Cleaning and Coating Committees
>> was
>> too boring a title. So I bestowed the Title of Emporer on myself.
>> Debbie Obitz became Vice Empress.
>> Graham Naisbitt is the head of the Jedi Council John Perry and Kris
>> Roberson
>> are now Grand Moffs.
>> We have a few System Lords running around.
>>
>> We definitely have more fun than the other General Committees.
>>
>> So have fun. Maybe Inge can be the Marquis of Micro. Mr. Stadem can be
>> Duke of DRAMS........
>>
>> Doug Pauls
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 12/14/2012 04:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: [TN] Component issue - epoxy die attach
>> Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> _____
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Inge,
>>
>>
>>
>> Not so sure I desire / deserve that title.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would submit it to you instead.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Howard, you have asked a few questions for which there likely are no
>> perfect
>> answers except, "it all depends".
>>
>>
>>
>> "Back in the day", I was familiar with some commercial 'hermetic' parts
>> that
>> I would not recommend anyone use.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Inge that processes have improved [and most of the really bad
>> suppliers no longer exist], but I view RGA results as a planned goal
>> related
>> to adhesive processing, overall component cleanliness, and pre-seal
>> processing conditions. The RGA results are only as good as your process
>> leading up to the sealing operation. Once the package is sealed, it is a
>> done deal. You cannot screen out for RGA on a piece by piece basis, as
>> you
>> can with electrical test. Die attach, wire pull and electrical test
>> results
>> should be almost transparent across the spectrum from COM, MIL, to Space.
>> The only difference is that one normally imposses greater requirements,
>> and
>> increased testing frequency on MIL/Space than on the COM product. And for
>> reference, with the exception of radiation hardness, Implantable Medical
>> devices were as tight, or tighter than Mil/Space
>>
>>
>>
>> Now then, many manufacturers that make both Commercial and Mil product
>> will
>> often share a great deal of processes, but sometimes Production, is
>> Production.. If a Mil pre-seal bake was 24-36 hrs, a corresponding Com
>> bake
>> may have only been 8-12 hrs. Pre-seal bake and vacuum bake ovens attached
>> to the sealing chambers are limited in size, so one would not generally
>> allow a Com grade part to unnecessarily take up resources. Maybe 8-12 hrs
>> is not quite good enough to meet Mil specs. that's why it is processed as
>> a
>> Com part.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry we are not giving you a clean answer to your questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Inge's wealth of documents will be helpful in your education, however.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Still time for me to bundle up and check out the meteor shower!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve Creswick
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Inge Hernefjord [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]**>
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 3:08 AM
>> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Steven Creswick
>> Subject: Re: [TN] Component issue - epoxy die attach
>>
>>
>>
>> Howard,
>>
>> I'm afraid we do bombard you with facts so will be choked. Therefore, I'll
>> take it slowly.
>>
>> 1. Steve is King of Micro, listen to him
>> 2. Nothing wrong with upgrading commercial to MIL or SPACE. JAN, QL,
>> etc
>> too expensive, will disappear. Semi processing been so good today, that
>> there is nearly no difference between commercial and MIL production.
>> 3. I send offline to you an article, that is a good one to start with. No
>> meaning to complicate the question. Suitable drink for this paper: 4 cl
>> Isle of Jura
>> 4. Epoxy hysteria was initially because its outgassing caused trouble for
>> all optics in SPACE parts. Agree with the King, well processed epoxies do
>> no
>> harm.
>>
>>
>>
>> Inge
>>
>> On 14 December 2012 03:14, Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Joyce - Agree, but so do the Ni & Au platings.
>>
>> If the package had a hole so large that the helium was absorbed enmass in
>> the adhesive, it should have failed hermeticity due to the presence of He
>> -
>> or gross leak testing.
>>
>> I hope that he can at least trust that the hermeticity test was done
>> properly. You are right though, if that is not done correctly, all is
>> lost.
>>
>> Without being privy to the manufactures methods, it appears as though one
>> is
>> attempting to make a silk purse from sow's ear.
>>
>> It is my opinion that meeting RGA requirements is not a 'will test later'
>> kind of requirement - unless you plan to do 100% [destructive] testing.
>> Meeting RGA requirements is something that one needs to plan for, and
>> process accordingly, from the beginning.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve Creswick
>> Sr Associate - Balanced Enterprise Solutions
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/**stevencreswick<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevencreswick>
>> >
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/**stevencreswick<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevencreswick>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Joyce Koo [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:02 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [TN] Component issue - epoxy die attach
>>
>> Steven, epoxy absorb He. If he did He leak test, pass hermidicity means
>> nothing. My 2 cents.
>> --------------------------
>> Sent using BlackBerry
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Steven Creswick [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]**COM<[log in to unmask]>
>> >
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]**COM <[log in to unmask]>]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 08:58 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [TN] Component issue - epoxy die attach
>>
>> Howard,
>>
>> Sorry, this will be a bit long.
>>
>> I am glad you stated that the packages passed hermeticity testing. That
>> would have been the first item to check.
>>
>> I assume this is TO-5 or smaller style package. The smaller volume
>> packages
>> can be problematic if there is a leak during puncture of the package
>> because
>> the available tested volume is so small compared to a potential leak.
>>
>> Different labs used to test for RGA in different manners, with different
>> style equipment.
>>
>> On one style of test equipment, the sample package would be placed into
>> the
>> evacuated test chamber and punctured/broken. The sample gas would then
>> flow
>> into the chamber and subsequently be taken into the mass spec.
>>
>> Other equipment relied upon placing the package up against the sampling
>> port, sealing it via an o-ring [of sorts]. Once fixed against the
>> evacuated
>> sampling port, a needle would protrude through the center of the o-ring
>> and
>> puncture the package lid, allowing the test gas to enter the mass spec.
>>
>> Both methods have pro and cons. The chamber method is most convenient for
>> all-ceramic style packages where there is no metal lid to puncture. A
>> problem with it is that the entire exterior of the package must be
>> thoroughly cleaned, but can still carry ad/absorbed species into the test
>> chamber. Plated surfaces also can contain a great deal of trapped
>> hydrogen
>> put down during plating. Some systems would see Hydrogen, and log it as
>> H2O.
>>
>> With the puncture method, if the lid is too robust, the act of puncturing
>> could displace the sample from the seal and allow atmosphere to be
>> introduced, thereby squirreling up the data. Most hybrids had
>> 0.010-0.020"
>> thick lids and what WE often did was to take a small end mill [~0.050"
>> dia]
>> and mill a small recess in the lid, leaving only about 0.005" of metal
>> thickness. The lab would than center this in the seal. Generally, this
>> gave us more consistent data.
>>
>> Variance of data - either approach is prone to variation if everything is
>> not absolutely perfectly cleaned and performed. You did not say how many
>> samples you ran at each lab. Hopefully, you ran 4-6 at each. As a
>> minimum,
>> 3, so you could throw out the low and high, and keep the middle. I am
>> sorry, but to test 1 or 2 is almost fruitless due to variance.
>>
>> To the adhesive - Two major potential issues come to mind.
>>
>> First - if you take a great adhesive and improperly process it, you end up
>> with garbage. The 84-1LMI is a very good adhesive which has been used by
>> many firms in Space, Mil, and Implantable medical applications. It can
>> meet
>> the requirements of Mil Std 883, TM 5011 when properly processed. That is
>> a
>> very good material to use - if properly processed!! Depending upon the
>> date
>> of assembly, it was THE material to use. [I am not in any way associated
>> with Ablestik/Henkel, but I have indeed used this material on many
>> hybrids,
>> including many space applications, one of which is still in the Saturnian
>> system]
>>
>> Second - No matter how well you process the adhesive, if the pre-seal
>> conditioning [pre-seal bakes, vac bakes, package [and lid] cleanliness
>> [and
>> bakes] is not adequate, one will end up trapping trash inside a hermetic
>> package.
>>
>> Yes the limit is 5000PPM. The real issue is [if the RGA testing is
>> accurate] what other ionics and corruption do you have inside the package
>> to
>> combine with the water??
>>
>> Whether adhesive is allowed or dis-allowed is generally addressed by the
>> detail specification for the device. I do indeed know of quite a few
>> Space
>> level parts that have adhesive inside.... properly processed adhesives...
>>
>> No one can really give you a definitive answer, at arms length, such as
>> this, but here are my free two bits ...
>>
>>
>> I would have to go back and review my dew point knowledge, but I strongly
>> suspect the 28000 PPM is bogus [unless device assembly is really sloppy -
>> see below]. You should be able to achieve well under 2000 PPM without too
>> much grief if it is a TO-5 or smaller package [properly processed].
>>
>> My fear is that you are buying a commercial grade device, that was
>> assembled
>> and processed as a commercial grade device, having no RGA requirements.
>> Therefore, the adhesives were likely not processed in a manner which would
>> give you good RGA results. To make a poor analogy, it is like you are
>> buying a standard 75W incandescent bulb and banging it around as though it
>> were a Rough Service bulb. Yes, some will survive the abuse, but most
>> will
>> have the filament destroyed almost immediately because they were not
>> constructed in a manner which would offer a much greater likelihood that
>> they would pass testing. That may be the situation you are in. Sorry.
>>
>> Hopefully Inge is eyes-open and he can add a few comments as well.
>>
>>
>> Steve Creswick
>> Sr Associate - Balanced Enterprise Solutions
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/**stevencreswick<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevencreswick>
>> >
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/**stevencreswick<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevencreswick>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Watson, Howard A
>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:24 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [TN] Component issue - epoxy die attach
>>
>> Hello 'netters,
>>
>> I debated posting this, as it seems to me to be an obscure problem, but
>> then, I'm always amazed at your knowledge base. I have a JFET 2N6550
>> component to be used for space application. Unfortunately, it is not
>> manufactured at JANS space quality, so we buy the commercial grade, plus
>> an
>> option 2 screening, which upscreens the part to "like" JANTXV. I think
>> this
>> is called re-branding. Then, we send it to a lab for further upscreening
>> to
>> JANS. The problem is that the parts are failing the moisture test of the
>> residual gas analysis (RGA). I found out that epoxy is used for the die
>> attach, and likely the epoxy is outgasing during subsequent baking as part
>> of the testing. My first question is who knows of a standard for die
>> attach
>> of this component type stating that epoxy is forbidden for military and
>> space use? The epoxy used by the manufacturer is Ablestik p/n 84-1LMI;
>> Material # 1119570. I just found out today that they do have the
>> capability
>> of eutectic die attach, and I'm pursing this option, expecting a huge
>> expense and lead time.
>>
>> Secondly, I had two independent labs perform the RGA. The first lab had
>> results averaging ~28,000 PPM. The second lab results averaged ~5600 PPM.
>> The standard is no more than 5000 PPM. They both performed the testing to
>> the same MIL-STD-750. I can't understand the wide range of results, but
>> my
>> second question is who knows of any studies related to the negative
>> effects
>> of excessive (>5000 PPM) moisture inside hermetically sealed devices used
>> in
>> space? By the way, they all passed the seal tests. Perhaps some of you
>> are
>> knowledgeable in this area. Thanks in advance for your help.
>>
>> Howard Watson
>>
>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>> __________
>> 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]
>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>> __________
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
>> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
>> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
>> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from
>> your
>> system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
>> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be
>> unlawful.
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>> __________
>> 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]
>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>> __________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>> __________
>> 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]
>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>> __________
>>
>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>> __________
>> 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]
>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>> __________
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________**______________________________**__________
> 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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
