TECHNET Archives

March 2018

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:
Douglas Pauls <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Douglas Pauls <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:08:50 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (71 lines)
I will stay that at Apex, there was a company called Seica (www.seica-na.com)
that had a visual inspection tool that measured coating thickness based on
degree of fluorescing agent.  One of my items on a veeeeeeeery long to do
list is to look into it more.  I do know the USA office is out of Lombard,
IL, so Rich, that might be an option.


Doug Pauls
Principal Materials and Process Engineer
Rockwell Collins

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:30 PM, David Hillman <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Rich - as part of the IPC-JSTD-001 Conformal Coating Coverage/Thickness
> "State of the Industry" Assessment task group efforts, we reviewed the
> available conformal coating measurement/inspection equipment in an effort
> to make our measurement tasks consistent and repeatable. We were unable to
> identify any system that could make the conformal coating
> thickness/coverage measurements we wanted so we resorted to using
> metallographic cross-section techniques (very slow but accurate). That was
> three years ago so hopefully a new system exists that can meet your needs.
>
> Dave Hillman
> Rockwell Collins
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Richard Kraszewski <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Several years back we had run-off  for AOI equipment  to inspect for
> > coating defects.  Had 2 equipment providers bring equipment on site and
> > worked with them for several weeks.
> > The results were rather disappointing  in that neither was reliable
> > enough  to replace an human inspector.
> > Seemed like the defects that the systems could collect  needed to be
> > rather gross and obvious.
> > Could not  reliably identify those smaller scale defects (bubbles between
> > leads, FOD, thick fillets, etc.) that class 3 customers seemed to also
> care
> > about.
> >
> > Would appreciate  any supporting  or contradicting experiences anyone is
> > willing to share.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Rich  Kraszewski
> > Senior Staff Process Engineer
> > Plexus
> >
> >
> > * * * * * * * * CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE * * * * * * * *
> >
> > This e-mail and any attachments are confidential from Plexus Corp. and
> may
> > contain information which is privileged, confidential, and/or protected
> by
> > non-disclosure agreements.  They are intended solely for the use of the
> > named addressee(s).  .  Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be
> > unlawful.  If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, disclose,
> > retain or reproduce all or any part of the information contained in this
> > e-mail or any attachments If you have received this transmission in
> error,
> > please destroy it and notify us immediately by return e-mail or by
> calling +
> > 1 888 208 9005.
> >
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2