TECHNET Archives

January 2015

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:
David Hillman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, David Hillman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:41:13 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (115 lines)
Ya, things can sneak up on you when you are busy working hard on projects!
Its a pretty good specification, the committee worked very hard on it. The
Appendices have data on element embrittlement, wire bonding, wetting tests,
etc.

Dave

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Stadem, Richard D. <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  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]> 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]] On Behalf Of Ricardo Moncaglieri
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:06 PM
> To: [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]> 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]] On Behalf Of Ricardo Moncaglieri
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:42 AM
> To: [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]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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