Uff! I would let them do any rework, if needed. And tell them to have fun with that!
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of lduso - Diamond-MT.com
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 8:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] R: [TN] Required Conformal Coating of Edges of PCB's
Lol..You are 100% correct my friend. As most of the strange requests I get, they come from the customer's customer. Like when they change from a UR coating to parylene but forget to change the thickness requirement. Not pretty putting parylene down to 3 mils thick!!
Lloyd Duso
Diamond-MT
Plant Manager
(814) 535-3505
www.Diamond-mt.com
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Steve Gregory <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yep Lloyd, but let me clarify, not my requirement, the customers...
> [?]
>
> Steve
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:12 PM, lduso - Diamond-MT.com <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Exactly my point....neither is coating boards to 20 mils thick with
>> SR conformal coating, but yet we get told to do just that. Isn't that
>> right Mr.Gregory?...lol
>>
>> Lloyd Duso
>> Diamond-MT
>> Plant Manager
>> (814) 535-3505
>> www.Diamond-mt.com
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:01 PM, SALA GABRIELE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > even not in the HDBK-830
>> >
>> > Gabriele
>> >
>> > -----Messaggio originale-----
>> > Da: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Per conto di Guy Ramsey
>> > Inviato: mercoledì 4 marzo 2015 20.26
>> > A: [log in to unmask]
>> > Oggetto: Re: [TN] Required Conformal Coating of Edges of PCB's
>> >
>> > Beware of false knowledge. It is more dangerous than ignorance.
>> > This is not in the J-STD-001F, or IPC-CC-830B.
>> >
>> > Guy
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of lduso -
>> Diamond-MT.com
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:26 PM
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Re: [TN] Required Conformal Coating of Edges of PCB's
>> >
>> > All I can add is this: As coating application contractor we have
>> > had hundreds of customers over the years and thousands of part numbers.
>> > Everything from NASA Maven to paintball gun CCA's. In all that I
>> > think I had two part numbers in 8 years that the customer required
>> > the edge to be coated. One claimed that the reason was to seal the
>> > edge of the board
>> and
>> > the other said it was because there was copper extremely close the edge.
>> >
>> > As everyone has said, it's something worked out between us and the
>> > customer.
>> > The funniest part is that they all claim it is in accordance with
>> > the
>> IPC.
>> >
>> > Lloyd Duso
>> > Diamond-MT
>> > Plant Manager
>> > (814) 535-3505
>> > www.Diamond-mt.com
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Richard Kraszewski <
>> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks to all for the great insights & discussion on this topic.
>> > >
>> > > Rich Kraszewski
>> > > PLEXUS
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gregg Owens
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:19 AM
>> > > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > > Subject: Re: [TN] Required Conformal Coating of Edges of PCB's
>> > >
>> > > I vote great minds! :)
>> > >
>> > > Gregg
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Stadem, Richard D. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:36 AM
>> > > To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Gregg Owens
>> > > Subject: RE: [TN] Required Conformal Coating of Edges of PCB's
>> > >
>> > > Gregg, I posted almost the same thing and sent it before I saw
>> > > your posting. Great minds think alike, or something like that, I guess!
>> > > dean
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gregg Owens
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:31 AM
>> > > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > > Subject: Re: [TN] Required Conformal Coating of Edges of PCB's
>> > >
>> > > Standards do not necessarily define every possible condition,
>> > > exemplified by this thread's conversations. I am sure the
>> > > standard committee members for conformal coating need to take
>> > > note of this condition and come to some conclusion in future
>> > > editions of the standard. The problem becomes "it depends" is
>> > > sometimes the right
>> answer
>> > for some criteria in IPC standards.
>> > > That is where the standards state: AABUS (as agreed to between
>> > > user and supplier (manufacturer)).
>> > >
>> > > We live in a complex world where decisions making becomes
>> > > convoluted between user (customer) and manufacturer. Some users
>> > > depend on the manufacturer's experience for best industry
>> > > practices because they may know very little about electronics
>> > > manufacturing processes let alone end-use implications of those
>> > > processes (e.g. whether or not to conformally coat a board, what
>> > > type of coating to use and coverage
>> > requirements).
>> > >
>> > > I live in a bubble where engineering resides with production and
>> > > communication is very near seamless. So such issues can
>> > > effectively and efficiently discussed and quickly and effectively
>> > > decided upon. In the real world of contract manufacturers this rarely exists.
>> > >
>> > > If life were easy, most of use would not be needed.
>> > >
>> > > Gregg
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dale Ritzen
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:07 AM
>> > > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > > Subject: Re: [TN] Required Conformal Coating of Edges of PCB's
>> > >
>> > > Seriously folks... is this a real or imaginary problem? We have
>> > > seen both "yes" and "no" opinions over the last several days. Is
>> > > anyone basing their opinions on a specific standard that states
>> > > what conditions require the PCB edges to be coated, or is it
>> > > simply a matter of the customer specifying that requirement on
>> > > their S.O.W. for the product? Are manufacturers to second guess
>> > > the customer about the places the product will be used and the
>> > > environmental conditions it will be placed in that might warrant
>> > > coating of the PCB edges, or does that really matter anymore with
>> > > the state of the art PCB manufacturing processes - regardless of
>> > > the condition of the material left on the edges (with the
>> > > possible exception of PCBs made of Polyimide
>> materials)?
>> > >
>> > > So far we have seen opinions - not quotes from any standard that
>> > > covers this. Does that exist, or is it something that the IPC
>> > > technical committees need to look into for further definition?
>> > > Sounds to me like it needs some definition in a standard so we
>> > > all have
>> > something
>> > to march to...
>> > >
>> > > IMHO,
>> > > Dale Ritzen, ASQ CQA
>> > > Quality Manager / ISO Management Representative
>> > > ___________________________ Austin Manufacturing Services
>> > > _________________________________________________________________
>> > > _____
>> > > _________________________________________________________________
>> > > ____ 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.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yuan-chia
>> > > Joyce Koo
>> > > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 5:20 PM
>> > > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > > Subject: Re: [TN] Required Confromal Coating of Edges of PCB's
>> > >
>> > > also there are cut off edges of the PWB like using shear...
>> > > really bad with all the fiber glass stick out.... there is not
>> > > enough coating can fix that... (don't laugh, those are real surprise you get from far)...
>> > > jk
>> > > On Mar 2, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Stadem, Richard D. wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > You lost me on that post, Wayne.
>> > > > Not sure what you are trying to describe when you talk about
>> > > > drilling thousands of overlapping holes as a method of routing
>> > > > out a
>> > PWB?
>> > > > The edge-coating being discussed was conformal coating, not
>> > > > plating of the edges?
>> > > > Sorry if I am slow on the uptick today.
>> > > > dean
>> > > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wayne
>> > > > Thayer
>> > > > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 8:44 AM
>> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > > > Subject: Re: [TN] Required Confromal Coating of Edges of PCB's
>> > > >
>> > > > I feel the need to point out the obvious:
>> > > >
>> > > > -Suppose we singulated a board by using a pcb drill, drilling
>> > > > thousands of overlapping holes. It's hard to keep drills sharp,
>> > > > so let's assume we just swap out bits after the same number of "hits"
>> > > > that we deem the bit good for via hole drilling. Now how 'bout
>> > > > we coat the exposed edge with plated metal, just to make sure
>> > > > that if there's a problem with the drilling/routing process, we
>> > > > have a real good chance of making a short.
>> > > >
>> > > > Any reason that should be dis-allowed? Try calculating the
>> > > > exposed area on the edge vs. all of the via circumferences you've got!
>> > > >
>> > > > Therefore, it's ridiculous to specify coating of routed board
>> > > > edges, which if anything, have less potential to damage fiber
>> > > > bundles than a drill. Snapped areas are a different category
>> > > > because drilling/milling has a limited capability to damage the laminate.
>> > > >
>> > > > Wayne
>> > > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem,
>> Richard D.
>> > > > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 9:26 AM
>> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > > > Subject: Re: [TN] Required Confromal Coating of Edges of PCB's
>> > > >
>> > > > Rich,
>> > > > In addition to what Dr. Pauls has detailed below, I also want
>> > > > to point out that whether or not any specification "recommends"
>> > > > or "does not recommend"
>> > > > coverage on certain areas of components and PWBs, it is the
>> > > > assembly drawing which has historically taken precedence over
>> > > > all standards when it comes to defining conformal coating coverage.
>> > > > This is because every assembly and PWB has different design
>> > > > requirements and it would be too difficult to document all of
>> > > > the exceptions to the different rules for each type.
>> > > > Many circuit boards are simply blanked out on a press, leaving
>> > > > exposed fiberglass edges, but these are also typically
>> > > > high-volume, low-reliability PWBs used only for consumer
>> > > > electronics. All other PWBs are typically routed or laser cut,
>> > > > and as Doug stated those are typically sealed by the
>> > > > singulation process. Depending on the type of PWB material, the
>> > > > method of singulation, and the application, there may be no need to coat the edges.
>> > > > Or there might be, but then one would expect this to be
>> > > > detailed as part of the assembly requirements on the drawing.
>> > > >
>> > > > dean
>> > > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Douglas
>> > > > Pauls
>> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 8:07 PM
>> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > > > Subject: Re: [TN] Required Confromal Coating of Edges of PCB's
>> > > >
>> > > > Rich,
>> > > > MIL-I-46058 is simply a materials qualification document. It
>> > > > does not address the coating of board edges. I would disagree
>> > > > with Graham and I do not believe that conformal coating edges
>> > > > of boards is a value added process. Most boards in high
>> > > > performance electronics have routed edges.
>> > > > The routing process tends to smear the resin over the glass
>> > > > reinforcement, sealing the edges. And since most design
>> > > > standards do not allow internal circuitry closer than 25 mils
>> > > > from the edge of the boards, water or external contaminants
>> > > > would have to penetrate
>> > > > 25 mils of epoxy resin to get to circuitry. If the edges of
>> > > > the boards were sheared or snapped, where the resin did not
>> > > > seal the ends, then perhaps the sealing would be justified. I
>> > > > can say that Rockwell has coated some board edges and left other edges free.
>> > > > We have no field failure, ever, that can be traced to lack of
>> > > > coating the board edges.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Doug Pauls
>> > > > Principal Materials and Process Engineer Rockwell Collins
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Richard Kraszewski <
>> > > > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Does anyone recall which MIL document calls out the
>> > > >> requirement to cover the PCB edges of assemblies?
>> > > >> I have been led to believe that one exists but that more than
>> > > >> likely it is not MIL-I-46058C.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Any thoughts??
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Rich Kraszewski
>> > > >> Plexus
>> > > >>
>> > > >> ______________________________________________________________
>> > > >> _____
>> > > >> __
>> > > >> _
>> > > >> 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]
>> > > _________________________________________________________________
>> > > _____
>> > >
>> > > _________________________________________________________________
>> > > _____ 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]
>> > ___________________________________________________________________
>> > ___
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Questa e-mail è priva di virus e malware perché è attiva la
>> > protezione avast! Antivirus.
>> > http://www.avast.com
>> >
>> > ___________________________________________________________________
>> > ___ 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 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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
