The purpose of this request is to solicited some opinions as to the 
merits of etchback.


My company has recently had some field returns which analysis has
disclosed that the failures are a result of post separation. The PWB
supplier ,when contacted, suggested that if our drawing had required
etchback there would have been a less of a chance for a failure of this
nature to occur.


My company uses both IPC-RB-276 (IPC-6011&IPC-6012) and
MIL-STD-55110E as procurement specifications and it so happens we 
have experienced failures in PWB's procured using both 
specifications. The guidance furnished by either is not definitive 
just if the Master Drawing say do it the etchback has to fall within 
certain limits.


We have always gone with only a chemical desmear (permanganate) with 
no apparent epoxy removal. We have never specified a chemical 
etchback for fear of latent defects from residual chemicals. Our PWB 
supplier tells us there is now available plasma etchback/chemical
desmear (permanganate) which we are told eliminates the potential
for the latent defect problem.


Does anyone have data which would provide information as to which 
process would make the more reliable product. Any and all replies and 
opinions welcome.  

***************************************************************************
* 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]      *
***************************************************************************