I don't mean to butt in, but the following caught my eye - especially the
ambiguity part:
"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."
IPC has long provided the best guidelines. They have not, until recently
when mil-stds/specs, etc. have been redirected/written/published. Thes
documents, as 6012, etc., are explecit and clarify many possible mistaken
opinions. They leave little room for ambiguity though those not used to
their deaminding criteria often find them a little too "confining" when
freedom to "roam" is "required.". The fact is, the cheap and time saving
elements are ensured more positive when more effective design "rules" and
acceptance "specifications" instead of guidelines are applied in a DFM/CE
environment.
Earl Moon
----- Original Message -----
From: James Patten <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [TN] pcb manufacturers
> 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
> ##############################################################
##############################################################
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
##############################################################
|
