TECHNET Archives

August 2014

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:
Yuan-chia Joyce Koo <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Yuan-chia Joyce Koo <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 15 Aug 2014 16:05:54 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (186 lines)
Mark, there are many OSP. Immidisole for example.  entek is the trade  
name of bensotriazole, there are entek plus... you really need to  
know what you are use it for.. my 2 cents.
     jk
On Aug 15, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Larson, Mark wrote:

> I can answer my own question, Benzotriazole is OSP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larson, Mark
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] surface finish for "bare" copper
>
>
> Anybody hear of "Benzotriazole"?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:03 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] surface finish for "bare" copper
>
> Most RF antenna guys get a little too crazy about this. Up to about  
> 10GHz I see a lot of ENIG used without complaint. If you want to  
> see someone freak out, go ahead and put a conformal coat on the  
> traces!
>
> The original fabricator talking about bare copper may have been  
> referring to a chromate anti-tarnish, which is often on the FR4  
> panels as delivered to the fab. That will hold up for quite a while  
> also, but I don't know if it can be applied post-fabrication.
>
> Nickel has poor RF performance. Ag oxidizes and will eventually  
> look ugly, but the performance will probably be good for a long  
> time, particularly with some anti-tarnish applied. Direct Au over  
> copper might be something to consider.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yuan-chia Joyce  
> Koo
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:43 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] surface finish for "bare" copper
>
> (1) you need radar guy (2) my guess would be Ag.
> just a guess.
>    jk
> On Aug 15, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Larson, Mark wrote:
>
>> Thank you but I guess I should have been more clear, there are no
>> components and no holes on this board, it is an antenna board, I'm
>> pretty sure, a couple decades ago perhaps, I had a similar situation
>> and I ordered bare copper because that's what the engineer said, I  
>> got
>> a call from the fabricator asking, no, make that telling me, we  
>> really
>> didn't want that. Maybe finish isn't the right word, treatment
>> perhaps, he said the copper could be treated with something that  
>> would
>> prevent oxidizing. I think it was part of their normal process before
>> applying HASL, but maybe with lead free it is no longer used.
>>
>> Maybe I could ask the question, what would you apply to prevent
>> oxidation yet not affect the performance of the antenna in the  
>> several
>> GigaHertz range.?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yuan-chia Joyce
>> Koo
>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 1:04 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [TN] surface finish for "bare" copper
>>
>> agree with steve 100%.  It also depend upon your assembly condition:
>> flux activity, number of reflow, reflow profile, subsequent exposure
>> to environment.... your design group should pick and choose the right
>> finishing... not on the MFG floor... my 2 cents.
>>                  jk
>> On Aug 15, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Stephen Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> To add to Wayne's input, make sure you call out the right OSP
>>> depending on the board technology...not all OSP's are the same.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>>>   Original Message
>>> From: Wayne Thayer
>>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:28 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Reply To: TechNet E-Mail Forum
>>> Subject: Re: [TN] surface finish for "bare" copper
>>>
>>> OSP
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Larson
>>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 1:12 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [TN] surface finish for "bare" copper
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've got a board that needs bare copper, many years ago I had  
>>> this as
>>> well and seem to recall that they can put on some kind of finish in
>>> the process that does not leave it bare, but does protect it in the
>>> processing of the board, and consequently does offer some protection
>>> to the end user.
>>> Anybody know what
>>> that is or how I call it out?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> This email and any attachments are only for use by the intended
>>> recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged, confidential,
>>> proprietary or otherwise private information. Any unauthorized use,
>>> reproduction, dissemination, distribution or other disclosure of the
>>> contents of this e-mail or its attachments is strictly  
>>> prohibited. If
>>> you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
>>> immediately and delete the original.
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________ 
>>> _
>>> _
>>> 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] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2