TECHNET Archives

1995

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:
[log in to unmask] (Jerry Cupples)
Date:
Mon, 11 Sep 1995 17:55:05 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
you said in your CircuitWorld Sept 95 newsletter:

>Fabrication Costs ... estimated HASL costs $ .75 - 1.00 per square foot
>                      estimated OSP costs $ .35 per square foot
>The costs to the PWB fabricator are significantly reduced and the assembler
>benefits from increased yields and better product reliabilty.

At the recent Surface Mount International Conference, a paper was presented
by Ray, Artaki, Wenger, and Machusak of AT&T Bell Labs. They offered the
following fab cost comparisons ($/sq. ft.)

        Imidazole  immersion tin   HASL   Pd/Cu    Pd/Ni   Au/Ni
min     .020         .75           1.40    1.40     2.30    2.80
max     .050        1.10           2.40    2.40     3.70    4.00

These numbers are actually my interpretation of the graph shown in the
paper as published in the proceedings.

These figures are a little higher than what your Newsletter showed.

I would interperet that for a typical 3 sq ft panel, the cost savings to
the fabricator might be 1.90 to 1.20 per sq ft switching from HASL to OSP.
If that is the case, a 4 unit per panel might cost the fab supplier say
$0.40 less to produce.

If I knew I could save $0.50 per unit on buying PWB's (as a PWB assembler),
I would be a hero. To date, no supplier of our Company is offering such
price reductions. Maybe they will soon, let's hope.

Based on early testing we have done of these coatings, I am ready to change
when the savings justifies the relatively minor process changes, but
probably not until that time.

Jerry Cupples
Interphase Corporation
Dallas, TX






ATOM RSS1 RSS2