TECHNET Archives

July 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:
"Stadem, Richard D" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Stadem, Richard D
Date:
Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:15:17 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
I would call your Future rep and ask, I guess. 



-----Original Message-----

From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Brendlinger

Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 11:08 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [TN] MSL Rating question on Microchip device...



Odin,

I think you're correct in a general case, but in this case Future lists it

as MSL1/3 but Microchip lists it as 3... I can't find any Microchip docs

listing it as 1/3. Perhaps they previously classified it as MSL1/3 and have

since changed it to 3.



t



On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Stadem, Richard D <

[log in to unmask]> wrote:



> It is NOT an error.

> The component manufacturers simply had an original classification for

> handling based on a leaded process (MSL-1), where the parts were reflow

> soldered and reworked using Sn63 solder profiles prior to RoHS.

> Because there were so many parts that were qualified per IPC-020 as MSL-1

> out in the market when RoHS was incorporated, the component manufacturers

> and distributors had no way of going back to re-mark the original part

> packaging to MSL-3 or higher if unleaded solder and its corresponding

> hotter profiles were used. So they simply updated their part prints from

> MSL-1 to MSL-1/MSL-3, with the understanding that the user would handle the

> parts as a level 3 if they were going to go through the hotter lead-free

> processing.

> In other words, the parts would be fine if leaded (max reflow temp around

> 220C) was used, but special precautions to keep the parts dry (MSL-3) were

> required at the hotter profiles.

> Also, some component manufacturers upgraded their components so they could

> withstand the hotter processing temperatures, but they did not want to pass

> on those Level 3 requirements to users who intended to process using leaded

> temperatures, so they called them MSL-1/MSL-3, thus allowing no special

> handling for those who were going to solder with a leaded process.

> Odin

>

> -----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.

> >

>


ATOM RSS1 RSS2