TECHNET Archives

August 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:
Steve Herring <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Steve Herring <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:33:25 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Wayne,



We no longer use the "pizza cutter" style machine to separate scored boards except for a very few cases. We use a Fancort VPD instead. Our testing has shown the "pizza" style cutter to induce too much strain further than the mfr says. "Break-away" tabs are problematic unless you "cut" them somehow. We did a study a while ago with strain gauges, but I don't know if I can locate the data. If so, I'll send it to you. 



Steve



Sent from my iPad



> On Aug 15, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Wayne Thayer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 

> Hi Steve-

> 

> Thanks for the info. That sounds very reasonable, but it would be nice to

> have more analytical data such as

> -Which orientation is more susceptible to damage? (seems obvious with the

> tabs but I'm not certain on the scores)

> -It seems obvious that smaller parts would be less susceptible, so maybe

> they can be closer to the edge?

> 

> Wayne Thayer

> 

> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Vargas, Stephen M <

> [log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 

>> Wayne:

>> 

>>      We recommend keeping larger size ceramic style parts at least .200"

>> from the PCB edge where depanelization is required. For V-Scores, we ask

>> that a route in the breakaway be added to minimizes the stresses. For

>> mouse-bites, we like to see the tabs as far as possible from the edge

>> parts.

>> 

>> Regards,

>> Steve Vargas

>> 

>> Lockheed Martin RMS-Rotary and Mission Systems

>> Polaris Contract Mfg.

>> 15 Barnabas Rd

>> Marion, MA 02738

>> 774-553-6192

>> [log in to unmask]

>> 

>>  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

>> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: TechNet <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer

>> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 2:36 PM

>> To: [log in to unmask]

>> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [TN] MLCC spacing/orientation to V-score or

>> Perforated Tabs

>> 

>> That doesn't give me "warm fuzzies"! I have personally seen pizza wheels

>> result in a broken cap 0.125" away (no visual cue, 10% of parts had the

>> problem). Leaving a potential reliability issue to each pcb assembly house

>> is a real problem for me. And not just me, for all of us who use PCBs. I

>> did find a paper from Kemet which touched on the issue, but not in any

>> clear, useful guideline kind of way.

>> 

>> Wayne Thayer

>> 

>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:03 AM, John Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>> 

>>> Depend on vendors recommendations for best results

>>> 

>>> Sent from my iPad

>>> 

>>>> On Aug 14, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Wayne Thayer <[log in to unmask]>

>>> wrote:

>>>> 

>>>> Hi-

>>>> 

>>>> Is there an IPC standard for distances from components to board edge

>>>> for the V-score or perforated tab techniques? I've been able to find

>>>> several recommendations from manufacturers, but I couldn't find the

>>>> applicable

>>> IPC

>>>> doc.

>>>> 

>>>> Wayne Thayer

>>> 

>> 


ATOM RSS1 RSS2