Wow. I was not aware of that one. Thank you, Dave.
From: David Hillman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:37 PM
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Stadem, Richard D.
Subject: Re: [TN] ENEPIG on Space RF (1-2GHz) Applications
Hi Richard - there is a specification for ENEPIG! Its IPC-4556 and was issued January 2013.
Dave
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Stadem, Richard D. <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I am not an expert in this field, but I agree with Wayne. I would expect little or no difference from published performance of RF radar on ENIG when using ENEPIG. The addition of a very small layer of palladium is simply not going to have much of an additional improvement with regards to signal loss when you realize that the nickel thickness is more than fifteen times the thickness of the combined gold and palladium. This is assuming, of course, that the nickel thickness remains the same for both finishes (150 to 180 uinches, normally). Since there is no IPC specification for ENEPIG the assumption the nickel thickness is going to be the same is not confirmed.
But then again, we never cease to be surprised by the effects of very small changes in this business. It would certainly not be too difficult to compare the same CCA design using some sample PWBs, one batch with ENIG and one batch with ENEPIG finish.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Ricardo Moncaglieri
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [TN] ENEPIG on Space RF (1-2GHz) Applications
Thayer,
Thank you very much.
Will remain on the line....
rgds,Ricardo
>>> Wayne Thayer <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 27/01/2015 11:55 >>>
Apologies, Ricardo. I don't think anyone has the experience you are asking for the results of. In that frequency range, I believe the Nickel will overwhelm the Gold and Palladium, just because of the thickness difference and the skin depth will still extend past the Nickel. Since the Nickel thickness is the same for those two finish options, I expect the same results. But that is opinion, not test data, and I didn't even run the skin depth calculation, which is readily available.
Wayne Thayer
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Ricardo Moncaglieri
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [TN] ENEPIG on Space RF (1-2GHz) Applications
----- RESENT -----
Dear Colleagues,
We are facing a space RF Radar application. In the past we have had experience on RF RADAR freq. applications using TMM10 ROGERS IAu etc. We have no experience using ENEPIG on space Radar (1-2GHz) applications.
We have been looking some papers refering to ENIG but not ENEPIG.
Will appreciate so far any of you can submit some data on this subject better if as per own experience can ensure ENEPIG doesnt affect negativelly RF pcb performance, loss, impedance etc Keep awaiting your unvaluable feedback.
brgds,Ricardo
______________________________________________________________________
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]<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]<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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
