TECHNET Archives

August 1997

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:
Reply To:
TechNet Mail Forum.
Date:
Fri, 8 Aug 1997 15:32:05 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
     Jim,

     It depends on what end your on.  I did a cost analysis, from the
     customer end, several years ago on the cost savings of going to OSP
     from HASL.  From what I remember the cost savings was about equal with
     a slight decrease of maybe $0.50 - $1.00 less than HASL.  I'll stick
     with OSP and HASL as being equal.

     From a user end, operating cost of HASL is very expensive, which
     includes Hardware (Gyrex, Halco, etc), SnPb, dross, electricity, flux,
     safety, cleaners, etc, in addition to hourly maintenance, depending on
     volume.  Not all is bad, it's still the most widely used surface
     protectant.

     OSPs however, can be batched processed in a polypro tank or recessed
     cart.  A bare minimum of 10 micron filter, teflon tank heater, PVC
     rack and I/O pump are necessary.  215 to 315 Angstroms are deposited
     and are very coplanar.  This cost is minimal.


     A fabricators transition from HASL to OSP kept the cost between the
     two at bay even though OSP capital cost is significantly lower than
     HASL.

     John Gulley


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [TECHNET] FAB: OSP COATINGS
Author:  Jim Marsico 516-595-5879 <[log in to unmask]> at Internet


ATOM RSS1 RSS2