Russ,

        I think that each step associated with creating this condition 
needs to be looked individually to determine their conformance.  Once that 
is done, if everything has been deemed "conforming", the construction 
should be considered to be conforming.

        For the initial filling and cap plating:

        Does the depth of the "dimple" and the cap plating thickness meet 
the specified requirements?
                If so, the initial element of the structure is conforming.

        For the final cap plating step:

        Is there any plating separation? 
                In this case, I wouldn't consider the cap plating that 
exists over resin to be a plating separation because resin from the next 
lamination step would be expected to fill any depression (dimples) in the 
existing structure.  I'd evaluate the areas where the new cap plating had 
an opportunity to plate to existing to determine whether the plating was 
separated.

        From the looks of the picture, I wouldn't call the condition 
plating separation, but I don't know if the initial hole fill and plating 
cap thickness meet their requirements.

Thanks,
Lance





From:   Russ Shepherd <[log in to unmask]>
To:     <[log in to unmask]>
Date:   03/25/2015 10:16 AM
Subject:        Re: [IPC-600-6012] Cap Plating - Separation, dimple, void 
or acceptable?
Sent by:        IPC-600-6012 <[log in to unmask]>



We would normally call it plating separation, therefore non-conforming as 
well.  I am getting some pushback, especially if it is solid fill material 
(no gap), similar to an inclusion, and plating thicknesses are met.

Russ

-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris 
Mahanna
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Cap Plating - Separation, dimple, void or 
acceptable?

We call it nonconforming for separation, as the design activity likely 
envisioned it as plated together.
Limitations need to be placed upon any caveat, as it can encroach onto the 
surface, and it interplays with external registration requirements.
There was a small group of people working on a proposal for 6012D, but it 
got moved down the list.

Robisan is currently in the middle of some program disagreement on this 
issue too.
We have been stalling (leaving it as nonconforming), in an attempt to make 
sure design activities have reviewed, understand and limit the caveats.

If 6012 can take it up quickly, maybe we can find an industry standard 
answer.

Chris


Chris Mahanna
Robisan Laboratory Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Russ 
Shepherd
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [IPC-600-6012] Cap Plating - Separation, dimple, void or 
acceptable?

Hello all,

I have been coming across a condition lately that many board suppliers are 
saying is unavoidable.  The condition in the picture attached where there 
is more than one cap plating process with a hole fill (of other holes) in 
between.  What's happening ins there is a deposit of fill material on the 
surface of the first cap plating layer getting covered by the second cap 
plating process.  How does this get addressed?  As an inclusion, 
separation, dimple, plating void, or non-issue?

[cid:[log in to unmask]]

Thanks!


Sincerely,

Russ Shepherd
Vice President of Operations
MICROTEK LABORATORIES
(714) 999-1616



______________________________________________________________________
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] 
______________________________________________________________________