Avi,
Each of these direct metallization processes has something
going for it. They can each point to proof sources which
would indicate to you that they are fully capable of
processing Military PWB PTHs. So you could get (and sound)
confused as to how to make the decision on which process to
choose.
My advice is to choose a process which fits well in your
shop if you are a PWB fabricator. A survey of the processes
would give you a good idea of how they run.
I would then get suppliers to audit your shop to show you
how their process would run and what exact advantages (i.e.
cost, labor, material, scrap) your shop would see with their
process. If a supplier will not do this, they should not be
considered.
Check with the proof sources these suppliers give you for
confirmation of the value of the direct metallization
process. I have noted that some of these folk list their
proof sources in their ads in trade magazines. Ask the
proof source questions on how they run the process, what
type of PTHs they plate, what testing they have done, HOW
OFTEN THEY HAVE TO CLEAN THEIR MACHINES, what process
controls they run, they might even give you process cost and
savings data.
Then I would send out test panels to the smaller list of
suppliers I would consider. I would make these panels to be
a type which gives you problems through your current PTH
line. If the supplier wanted to put a copper strike on
these panels, I wouldn't object. Some acid coppers do not
work well plating direct metallized surfaces. The suppliers
should be able to tell you this when they do their audit.
Test these panels per IPC-6012, class 3. Choose those
processes which pass your testing.
Now your decision comes down to the information you have
gathered plus the cost of installing the process (capital,
chemistry, etc.). Which process gives you the most
confidence technically, is the easiest to control, gives you
the best cost savings to run, is best supported by the
supplier in whom you have confidence and is it worth the
expense to put it into your shop.
That is the process I would say anyone would have to go
through when moving into the direct metallization world.
By the way, I DO have MY opinion on the best direct
metallization process for military or any applications.
However, that very well might not be the answer for you.
Anyone who gives you a direct answer to this without
encouraging you to go through the above process is doing you
a disservice.
Good luck.
Regards,
Dave Sullivan
Rockwell Collins, Inc
[log in to unmask]
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Direct metallization for MIL grade PCBs.
Author: [log in to unmask] at ccmgw1
Date: 1/15/97 12:34 PM
Hi there,
I would like to know which is THE most reliable method of DIRECT METALLIZATION
for MIL grade PCBs. Do I use Pallidum or Carbon or Ploymers????
My e-mail address is [log in to unmask]
Thanks in advance.
avi.
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
* If you are having a problem with the IPC TechNet forum please contact *
* Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask] *
***************************************************************************
Received: from by ccmgw1.cacd.rockwell.com (SMTPLINK V2.11)
; Wed, 15 Jan 97 12:33:53 cst
Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from stealth.cacd.rockwell.com (stealth) by mailserv with ESMTP
(1.40.112.8/16.2) id AA121453232; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:33:52 -0600
Received: by stealth.cacd.rockwell.com; id MAA26399; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:33:43 -0600
Received: from unknown(168.113.24.64) by stealth via smap (V3.1.1)
id xma026389; Wed, 15 Jan 97 12:33:20 -0600
Received: from ipc.org by simon.ipc.org via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
id MAA06122; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:23:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:23:03 -0800
Received: by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vkZYf-0000YFC; Wed, 15 Jan 97 11:55 CST
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Date: 15 Jan 97 20:52 GMT+0500
X400-Trace: IN*VSNL*SPRINTRPG; Arrival 15 Jan 97 20:52 GMT+0500
Action: Relayed
X400-Trace: in*vsnl*; Arrival 15 Jan 97 21:32 EST
Action: Relayed
Priority: normal
Ua-Content-Id: PBB2365 36
P1-Message-Id: IN*VSNL*SPRINTRPG;HJJH-2787-1472/36
Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
To: [log in to unmask]
Message-Id: <HJJH-2787-1472/36*[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Direct metallization for MIL grade PCBs.
Resent-Message-Id: <"m5GiJ3.0.R1M.CeHto"@ipc>
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/9238
X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
* If you are having a problem with the IPC TechNet forum please contact *
* Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask] *
***************************************************************************
|