TECHNET Archives

December 1998

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 E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 07:31:57 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
Jeff,

You have stated it well while everyone in our industry "seeks" answers to dumb data (Gerber)
problems and translating CAD to CAM intelligently. Gary also points to issues of economics wherein
no one embraces anything easily unless cost benefits become glaringly apparrent.

Suprisingly (to many), with GDT, some of the earliest users were auto makers. GDT lent itself
readily as part of it relies on "gaging" for tooling and part designs in a more three dimensional
world than PCB's and their apparently two dimensional realm. However, when looking at the entire
PCB/PCBA design, manufacturing, and test world, it is very three dimensional. Nowhere is this more
true than electrical test fixturing and component placement.

This forum often has addressed issues concerning how to test uBGA's, as an example, and the
gyrations one must go through to assure test pin point deflection onto impossibly small targets.
Placement, though very X-Y oriented, relies heavily on very tight accuracy requirements that almost
defy machine capabilities. All this leads to the concurrence issues starting at the design level.

With GDT, you cannot have non-concurrence. GDT is a universal "language" providing everyone in the
process loop (from design through test, concept to customer acceptance) an exact "view" of
everything going into the product and who must do what, where, and when to manage processes to
effect and assure product quality verified as meeting intent.

Another point you well make concerns having designers use two CAD systems to design product. I had
not seriously thought about this until recently when noticing designers using both PCB design tools
of choice to lay down traces, and right beside them a program such as AUTOCad to do the mechanical.
Ludicrous!

And on it goes in an industry professing concurrence and DFM while often not knowing their real
meanings. If it's got to be a cost driver to get the required changes, we should use the dictionary
more before making such pronouncements.

Earl Moon

################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TechNet 
################################################################
Please visit IPC's web site (http://www.ipc.org) "On-Line Services" section for additional information.
For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.312
################################################################


ATOM RSS1 RSS2