Ooops. Yeah I guess I took this string off on a tangent with my prototype
question. My shortcomings are that I sort of get impatient and "jones" for
the actual data (...since I figured I had a captive "supplier" audience). My
apologies.
William, et al, thanks for the reply on the rapid-turns.
Yeah, we "claim" to use standards (I've been at other companies that make
the same claim). But we are not always as informed as we claim AND
technology changes rapidly -- you said it: "... idea of getting the entire
supply chain involved at the product development level..." I figure I'd get
it right from the horses mouth. As well I'd like to comment on one of your
comments about end-use. You said: "We tend to believe that everything is
going into something critical and try to provide the best board possible all
of the time." I think I know what you mean -- First, WE absolutely (and very
carefully) consider certain designs more critical than others based on their
end-use. Based on a reply by Keith Larson stating:"Most reputable quick turn
fabricators are producing all product at Class 3, but not running the
microsections necessary unless they are actually certifying to Class 3." Is
this what you mean? With all respects, do you see that we WANT you to
differentiate only if it's cheaper. We want you to spend adequate time/money
on Class3 end-use because LEO, MEO and GEO orbit is a prohibitively long,
lonely journey for a service call. However, my bench testset is not
subjected to the same end-use rigors as the former, and therefore don't care
that you'd only spent 2 days in fab and charged a few hundred bucks. Test
sets donot experience random vibration or require CTE matching or
hyper-qualified materials and therefore can be all the stuff you stock.
One thing that I can share from my experience in electrical design
engineering community that you may not be aware of (maybe I'm naive), is
that for many years our engineering ONLY built what we call brass-boards or
wire-wraps (money out of your pocket) for proof of concept on a complicated
circuit. With the advent of sophisticated software and board suppliers that
can produce rapid turn-around, we've now swung over to having MLBs replace
the cumbersome wire-wrap technology. BUT, it has to be cheap because we are
going to cut and paste the hell out of the board by the time we debug our
circuits. I've always felt the IPC product classification is such an elegant
solution to ANY ambiguity on what the customer wants from the supplier.
-----Original Message-----
From: William Anderson [ mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 6:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] pcb manufacturers
I thought the original question was looking for names of pcb manufacturers
in a specific region. One that I wasn't in even though I'd be happy to
visit or FedEx into. Kinetic Circuits believe we can build anything and are
willing to try. We also focus on trying to keep our lead time short.
To enter into the conversation on why we don't participate in the technet:
Personally, I receive the technet in digest form. By the time I get it and
get around to reading it, a lot of people have already responded. And
frequently more eloquently than I could. Also, in spite of twenty years in
the business, I frequently feel like a rookie, or at least feel like I have
limited experience, especially compared to some who are answering. My
compliments to all, you're an excellent bunch of teachers.
Regarding our desire to keep our problems ours alone, every shop I've been
at has experienced many of the same issues. I think that idea is reinforced
by some of the exchanges here on the technet. What's been different is how
they approached the problems and almost always, how they resolved the
problems. Some times a band-aid, sometimes a real fix, frequently a shot in
the dark.
To go onto a couple of specific issues raised, I believe our biggest
challenge for the future is educating customers. Especially on the idea of
getting the entire supply chain involved at the product development level.
If the board shop and the assemblers are involved with the designers, the
whole process works better all along and for the entire life of the product.
Regarding design for prototypes vs. production, I would hope that you have
enough standard items and practices in place so that the designs are
produceable at all levels using common techniques and criteria. All circuit
boards are a lot of fooling around but we use the same basic techniques no
matter what. Some designs just require a little extra care and attention
given to them.
We generally don't refer to the various levels when discussing boards and
applications. We tend to believe that everything is going into something
critical and try to provide the best board possible all of the time. If
nothing else, the board is critical to the product for that customer. It
could be his only board in his only product...
While I would love to participate more in the technet and really appreciate
all who do, I find myself too busy most days to do many things that are for
the good of the company and the customers and the industry. Just like all
of you I try to contribute where I can.
Thank you.
Bill Anderson
Kinetic Circuits
##############################################################
TechNet Mail List 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 web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################
|
