TECHNET Archives

1996

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] (George Franck X2648 N408)
Date:
Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:00:05 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (229 lines)
Greg,
Did I miss something here (below)?  You agree with the reports conclusion,
but disagree with the experimental basis for the conclusion?, or put
another way, all the right answers for all the wrong reasons.

I remember something like this in my college course "Logic for Political
Science Majors"

Seriously, thanks for the warning.  The questionable applicability of this
procedure would have gone right over my head.


Back to soldermask tenting....

What experience do people have with plugged vias from the following process:
1) LPI soldermask (SMOBC) (no tents)
2) Solder coating (including vias)
3) Plug vias with Screen or LPI from component side

>From component side, you have a tented via.  From solder side you have a
solder coated blind via.  Any one using this process?

George Franck
Raytheon E-Systems
Falls Church Div


>I would be very careful with this report, if I were you.  I was in DEC
>during the time that this work was done and was in a position to review it
>carefully.  While I strongly AGREE with the results of this work (that
>Bare Copper does not present an added reliability risk and can actually be
>more reliable) and that Battelle does a great job with Flowing Mix Gas
>tests, I disagree with how this test was applied.  They took a test
>environment/procedure that was originally designed to stress gold-plated
>connector mating surfaces and tried to run an SIR degradation test in it.
>In my opinion, this "test" didn't really show anything conclusive.
>
>Greg Bartlett
>Mercury Computer Systems
>Chelmsford, MA
>[log in to unmask]
>--------
>     Mike - do you have a title, report number, etc that I could have our
>     info center chase down a copy of the Battelle Labs report for me?
>
>
>     Dave Hillman
>     Rockwell Collins
>     [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
>Subject: RE: Re[3]: Soldermask Tented Vias
>Author:  [log in to unmask] at ccmgw1
>Date:    6/20/96 9:43 AM
>
>
>
>I also have a copy of this report. It addresses metal migration of fine line
>circuits under bias on FR4 and Polyimide. Major questions were raised
>concering the use of polyimide PWBs. So, if you have FR4 substrates, bare
>copper via edges or bare copper untented vias are probably OK. If the solder
>mask covers the bare copper -- great. The level of residual ionic
>contamination is critical (according to the Batelle report) to the
>reliability of fine line circuits. We have a design with untented bare copper
>vias in the preproduction phase now.
>
>Mike Pisansky
>Unisys
>[log in to unmask]
> ----------
>From: TechNet-request
>To: TechNet
>Subject: Re[3]: Soldermask Tented Vias
>Date: Wednesday, June 19, 1996 5:23PM
>
>
>Yes!!!
>
>I have a copy of a report from Batelle Labs (study commisioned by DEC)that
>concludes tin/lead is more problematic than bare copper from a corrosion
>standpoint. If any one out there has any data to support the negative
>position on exposed copper, I'd love to see it posted here.
>
>
>Dennis Mitchell
>Zycon
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
>Subject: Re[2]: Soldermask Tented Vias
>Author:  [log in to unmask] at corp
>Date:    6/19/96 3:53 PM
>
>
>     Rodger -
>
>     I vote for your suggestion! If you look at an assembly with solder
>     mask closely, one will find that the sidewalls of many surface
>     features are bare copper. I think that the electronics industry in
>     general has quite a bit of exposed copper functioning in the field
>     with few problems. The exposed copper issues I have been working seems
>     to be a "culture" issue (military product primarily) - the standard
>     question has been "won't it corrode if the copper is exposed?. There
>     will be design and use environment specific cases where bare copper
>     will be a problem but overall there are gains to be realized. Using
>     bare copper would mean that the printed wiring board would see one
>     less thermal excursion (no HASL or Refuse operation) which can only be
>     a good thing from a reliability standpoint. Lee Parker of AT&T gave me
>     a paper on the corrosion of exposed copper in several environments
>     over a 30 year period - if I can find that paper I'll post it here on
>     TechNet. Well TechNet - anyone else in support of bare copper?
>
>
>     Dave Hillman
>     Rockwell Collins
>     [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
>Subject: Re: Soldermask Tented Vias
>Author:  [log in to unmask] at ccmgw1
>Date:    6/19/96 10:05 AM
>
>
>     I don't know much about your soldermask issue, but I would like to see
>     some discussion of the exposed copper issue.
>
>     We have felt for a long time that any exposed copper was unacceptable
>     but with the industry switching over to OSP more and more, we have to
>     accept a limited amount of copper exposure (when SMT pads don't get
>     paste).  If you are making SMT-only boards which don't flow across a
>     wave solder then the amount of exposed copper goes up tremendously.  I
>     recently talked to people at a company which is very prominent in the
>     electronics industry and has been allowing a large amount of exposed
>     copper on their PCB assemblies (look inside your PC and see how much
>     exposed copper you can find).  They have done a significant amount of
>     temperature and life testing and have seen no problems due to exposed
>     copper.
>
>     If this is true, isn't it time to stop worrying about exposed copper
>     and start making boards and assemblies cheaper?
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Roger Held
>     Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
>Subject: Soldermask Tented Vias
>Author:  [log in to unmask] at Internet-HICAM-OK
>Date:    6/19/96 8:48 AM
>
>
>
>Good Morning,
>
>We usually require soldermask over bare copper and tented vias (less than
>.020").  This typically means that the soldermask is dry film.  If a tented
>via is not required and liquid soldermask is used, it appears that the
>soldermask is suspect to flake off near the via knee, leaving a small amount
>
>of exposed copper.
>
>Is liquid solder mask over bare copper compliant with vias when the plating
>is eletroless nickel - immersion gold?
>
>Does the plating type matter?
>
>Is the suspect of exposed copper a non-issue?
>
>Thank you in advance of any comments.
>
>Kevin Thorson
>Lockhead Martin
>Eagan, Mn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
>Received: by mailgate.mc.com with SMTP;20 Jun 1996 13:11:02 -0400
>Received: from firewall.mc.com (firewall [192.148.197.15]) by jericho
>(8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id NAA00732 for <[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 20
>Jun 1996 13:10:56 -0400
>Received: by firewall.mc.com id AA16449
>  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <[log in to unmask]>); Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:10:54 -0400
>Received: from ipc.org(168.113.24.64) by firewall via smap (V1.3)
>        id sma016446; Thu Jun 20 13:10:39 1996
>Received: from ipc.org by simon.ipc.org via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
>         id LAA11305; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:50:52 -0700
>Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:50:52 -0700
>Received: by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
>        id m0uWmFy-0000CmC; Thu, 20 Jun 96 11:06 CDT
>Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 11:11:20 cst
>From: "ddhillma" <[log in to unmask]>
>Encoding: 146 Text
>Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
>Cc: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re[5]: Soldermask Tented Vias
>Resent-Message-Id: <"1tfk23.0.6m7.SSNon"@ipc>
>Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
>X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/4775
>X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
>Precedence: list
>Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>




ATOM RSS1 RSS2