HEAR! HEAR! Preach on Brotha!
So here is the way we got these parts from Future, the third label down is
our receiving inspection label and the parts were brought to me to try and
figure out what to do with them. They came to us in a metalized ESD bag and
not a MBB:
http://stevezeva.homestead.com/Microchip_part_from_Future.jpg
We're trying to do the right thing here by J-STD-33, but it's apparent that
everything we're doing may be just going through the motions because we
have no control over they way the parts have been handled prior to coming
to us....
Steve
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Stadem, Richard D <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> And furthermore, you can get the same part manufactured by more than one
> company using different methods. One manufacturer may classify his
> components at a level 1 or level 3, and yet another manufacturer of the
> same part may classify their parts as a level 4 or 5!
>
> Both parts do the same thing, and both meet the requirements of the
> Mil-Spec for that part number, but one can only withstand leaded
> processing, whilst the others can withstand lead-free processing. And it's
> confusing, because if a part is a level 4 or 5, that means it is MORE
> sensitive to moisture ingression, not less, and vice versa!
>
> Yes, I know this is very confusing and frustrating for the average
> Receiving Inspection person or Component Applications Engineer or Supply
> Line Engineer, because you now need to trust your distributor and go by the
> MSL level shown on the MSL Label on the parts, as required per J-STD-033.
> And just how many distributors are still at least somewhat ignorant of the
> results if they split out the parts from the original manufacturer's drypak
> without maintaining the handling procedures, and on top of it, failing to
> properly attach new MSL labels to the split-out parts and then send them to
> you? I'll be blunt; pretty much ALL of them! And if you get parts from
> your customer because they also use some of those parts, and they are
> received in unsealed packages with no MSL label, whose fault is it if you
> process them that way and they all popcorn? So you need to have boilerplate
> language on all purchase orders (and customer contracts) that passes down
> to the supplier the requirements of J-STD-033. If you don't, they are not
> liable for any damage you incurred as a result of their non-compliance. You
> are stuck between your component supplier giving you non-compliant
> components, and your customer, who can simply choose not to accept any
> product with those mishandled parts. Then the CEM is stuck holding the
> rework or scrap-and-replace cost. Most companies are now aware of this
> issue, but I am posting this for those who may not be. I don't want that to
> happen to anyone.
>
> Unfortunately, that is just one of the ten million issues that were not
> included in the due-diligence that the European Union completely failed to
> perform before they decreed that all electronic product imported into
> Europe shall be lead- and hazardous materials-free, to "protect the
> environment", in spite of the electronics industry's leading expert's
> protests. They ignored us; full speed ahead to rid the world of those evil
> chemicals. After all, they wanted to be seen as progressive, modern, and
> environmentally friendly so they could get re-elected. But the facts were
> well documented, there was little or no danger.
>
> Boy, did that ever backfire! Visit China and see what it has done. Did
> you get even MORE counterfeit components today? Blame RoHS, or rather those
> who implemented it without any thought of the consequences.
>
> Stepping down off my soapbox.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Brendlinger
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:42 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] MSL Rating question on Microchip device...
>
> Hi Steve,
> I think that 1/3 is an error. Microchip only defines their criteria for
> MSL-1 and MSL-3:
> https://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Rohs/
>
> This report lists pretty much all of their QFPs as being MSL-3:
> http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/EnvironmentalInformation/
> Package%20Qualification%20Summary%20report%205_15_18.pdf
>
> T
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Steve Gregory <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I just ran across something that was brought to my attention about the
> MSL
> > rating for a Microchip TQFP80 part, PN# PIC24FJ256GA108-I/PT
> > <https://analytics.supplyframe.com/trackingservlet/track/?r=
> > gPVv3S5fz9WS0muSSENj7rO6t8VXvQgK1rcMoyYTG0FvQlD0DIEzVjQKFnEX
> > zjwd-qWoH4WrGz915jp9zrn-G-x_qSIVtc8zbLug-SAwCiq0p74rp1VjbJ2KwYhfTKtPqXx
> > cTKsKZYCGGxofwy72prM2kZSCtGHPF0yQzQAytU_QVib44Cu-IBWW40DIyeoDrEQTNcmOi-
> > iuSYSbwoo9uOWkwMsYOgLpgGtKwmlenCQ2qMUd-IluZU4hJMiMAwmQlvALZwlfnfe9p0y
> > 3-ada-0yro_rIN4ri1yG9W-ZAXgWcwuQI3v44ByozahmNdDu-
> > pP83qBz7C1LvOj23z4u80ql5EFxO_M1uaNi8HamPkYIv5nst4jWzwTx9kLe
> > 371AdpR1Zade37d-Lbj994RtcoMlt-_tywF_Sm-fI_q-
> cK0pdzb47WLG3M1qI1PK3dWAQdVdSo
> > ATlHSFiOVsTCt_saqPqKUpH5GxSz0S4qHYNHBJVeAvg0srqjam2tMTKtH_4ep6RpxaZMva-
> > 9pU_Ey3iAJVT9HvW2kqUcoDZQO-bB3n0i_E50WvzT7FtGb8AY1fX6J8wP7q1t6XJ
> > 9Y4gX2enmlUGVq5roSzf_LM_4qzxpZ1mlezG7b5aZxH2oGmw_vefrS7sZbKNHTFjh_
> > Gdgyz4FHrdsp4ysX9vdVTIZyEMa-IrUGN_7E6JEROsA7dEt5NZikg5mrq17ntQe8
> > y7r5_MjRGjrWr9d7d57c8NJ-HE_WJMCK9KvwQMbI2rzs_fn0ogzAshEeM8su_nJNSXQoJ6-
> > WVWH9LR26AGY4y0d3PuCaOSBGsxFFiaSHOaBnl8Zc4tVZjXxT68gr9bJ8R3-
> > PsNm7SjxGiIymxAijZ7Qb4quJc>
> > the part came in from Future and they put a MSL1 label on it and the
> > package wasn't sealed. One of our more knowledgeable technicians wanted
> to
> > double check the rating because he knows that QFP's are normally MSL3 or
> > higher. The Digikey page calls this a MSL3 part, but if you go to Avnet's
> > page it gives this a 1/3 MSL rating...what is that? I have never heard
> of a
> > 1/3 MSL rating. I have also looked at the 305-page datasheet and can't
> find
> > a MSL rating in the Microchip documentation. Has anybody ever seen this
> > before?
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > --
> > Steve Gregory
> > Kimco Design and Manufacturing
> > Process Engineer
> > (208) 322-0500 Ext. -3133
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
--
Steve Gregory
Kimco Design and Manufacturing
Process Engineer
(208) 322-0500 Ext. -3133
--
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.
|
