TECHNET Archives

April 1997

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Received:
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0wFMuS-000BkwC; Thu, 10 Apr 97 11:41 CDT
Encoding:
91 Text, 28 Text
From [log in to unmask] Fri Apr 11 11:
24:51 1997
Date:
Thu, 10 Apr 97 11:49:51 cst
Precedence:
list
Resent-From:
Resent-Sender:
TechNet-request [log in to unmask]
X-Status:
Status:
O
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/11860
TO:
Return-Path:
<TechNet-request>
Resent-Message-ID:
<"50UZC2.0.FjG.hWHJp"@ipc>
Subject:
From:
"ddsulliv" <[log in to unmask]>
Old-Return-Path:
X-Loop:
Message-Id:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (133 lines)
          
          I agree with Randy.  I have used the dichromate etchant and 
          had no trouble detecting post separation and copper cracking 
          when it occurred.  I have seen inexperienced operators who 
          so overetched microsections with ammonium hydroxide peroxide 
          microetch that the sections could not be reground to find 
          the electroless copper interface to do an evaluation!
          
          Training of microsection personnel and constant monitoring 
          is extremely important.  The problem with the etching 
          variability over time with ammonium hydroxide peroxide will 
          show different results depending on where in that time 
          period the etching is being done.  I believe Randy's way of 
          making etch when needed then discarding is the most 
          reliable. I also recommend microsections be audited 
          frequently in order to make insure the quality of the work 
          of these inspectors.  You can't spend too much time 
          monitoring this area.
          
          NOTE:  The shop I where I worked dropped dichromate in an 
          attempt to get all chrome out of the shop.
          
          Regards,
          
          Dave Sullivan
          Rockwell Collins, Inc.
          
          [log in to unmask]


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Microsection Etchants
Author:  [log in to unmask] at ccmgw1
Date:    3/31/97 1:23 PM


I have noticed numerous posting on the best microsection etchant to use.   
 There are merits and disadvantages in the etchants mentioned to date.  I   
specifically would like to discuss the sodium dichromate and the ammonium   
hydroxide & hydrogen peroxide.
          
The ammonium hydorxide & hydrogen peroxide is 1 of the more unstable   
copper etchants that does an excellent job of microetching.  The most   
attractive attribute of this etchant is in the hands of a less skilled or   
naive person, the etchant will not overetch the surface to the severity   
of a chromate etchant. (Not say that only less skilled people use this   
etchant) I define 'instability' as variable etch quality over a short   
period of time (hours).  At Merix, we make enough etchant to microetch   
the work at hand and discard the remainder.
          
The soduim dichromate etchant is a stable etchant (last for months) that   
is more agressive than the ammonium hydroxide & hydrogen peroxide   
etchant.  The aggressive nature of this etchant requires greater skill by   
the user to prevent the surface from being overetched which hides cracks   
and separations.  I used the sodium dichromate etchant at my prior   
employer for 15 years and was able to detect separations and cracks.   
 While I worked at this employer, we published papers on our ability to   
detect separations and our concerns that separation was being shipped.
          
This leads me to believe the type of etchant is not so important as the   
user of the etchant. One of my favorite BC cartoons is a caption that "If   
you don't know what it does; don't screw with it". The skill and   
knowledge of the user is as impotant as the etchant itself.  IPC-MS-810   
lists the types of etchants that are recommended for etching of   
microsections.  Whatever etchant is chosen for use, the key is to create   
the desired etch quality of the surface to make wise decisions on   
quality.  The primary qualities are a faint definition of the electroless   
line, strike platre line (as applicable), and the copper grain   
boundaries.  When these boundaries become wide and/or dark in appearance,   
sensitivity is lost for detecting separation and cracks.
          
Lastly, the primary reason that the sodium dicromate etchant popularity   
declined is the the chrome content and EPA rulings on chrome.  The issue   
over chrome was a key reason that the etchant was dropped from the test   
methods and military use.
          
Happy microsectioning,
          
Randy Reed
Merix Corporation  
          
*************************************************************************** 
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 * 
*************************************************************************** 
* To subscribe/unsubscribe send a message <to: [log in to unmask]>   * 
* with <subject: subscribe/unsubscribe> and no text in the body.          * 
*************************************************************************** 
* 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)
    ; Mon, 31 Mar 97 13:22:58 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 AA297026174; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:22:54 -0600
Received: by stealth.cacd.rockwell.com; id NAA16739; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:20:54 -0600
Received: from unknown(168.113.24.64) by stealth.cacd.rockwell.com via smap (3.2)
    id xma016733; Mon, 31 Mar 97 13:20:31 -0600
Received: from ipc.org by simon.ipc.org via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
     id NAA14899; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:08:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:08:59 -0800
Received: by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
    id m0wBlmk-000BjiC; Mon, 31 Mar 97 12:26 CST
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:33 -0800
From: "Reed, Randy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Microsection Etchants
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-Id: <"qboLv1.0.iUK.D70Gp"@ipc>
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/11603
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 subscribe/unsubscribe send a message <to: [log in to unmask]>   *
* with <subject: subscribe/unsubscribe> and no text in the body.          *
***************************************************************************
* 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]      *
***************************************************************************



ATOM RSS1 RSS2