Ya, things can sneak up on you when you are busy working hard on projects! Its a pretty good specification, the committee worked very hard on it. The Appendices have data on element embrittlement, wire bonding, wetting tests, etc. Dave On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Stadem, Richard D. < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Wow. I was not aware of that one. Thank you, Dave. > > > > *From:* David Hillman [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:37 PM > *To:* TechNet E-Mail Forum; Stadem, Richard D. > *Subject:* Re: [TN] ENEPIG on Space RF (1-2GHz) Applications > > > > Hi Richard - there is a specification for ENEPIG! Its IPC-4556 and was > issued January 2013. > > > > Dave > > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Stadem, Richard D. < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I am not an expert in this field, but I agree with Wayne. I would expect > little or no difference from published performance of RF radar on ENIG when > using ENEPIG. The addition of a very small layer of palladium is simply not > going to have much of an additional improvement with regards to signal loss > when you realize that the nickel thickness is more than fifteen times the > thickness of the combined gold and palladium. This is assuming, of course, > that the nickel thickness remains the same for both finishes (150 to 180 > uinches, normally). Since there is no IPC specification for ENEPIG the > assumption the nickel thickness is going to be the same is not confirmed. > > But then again, we never cease to be surprised by the effects of very > small changes in this business. It would certainly not be too difficult to > compare the same CCA design using some sample PWBs, one batch with ENIG and > one batch with ENEPIG finish. > > -----Original Message----- > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ricardo Moncaglieri > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:06 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [TN] ENEPIG on Space RF (1-2GHz) Applications > > Thayer, > Thank you very much. > Will remain on the line.... > rgds,Ricardo > > >>> Wayne Thayer <[log in to unmask]> 27/01/2015 11:55 >>> > Apologies, Ricardo. I don't think anyone has the experience you are asking > for the results of. In that frequency range, I believe the Nickel will > overwhelm the Gold and Palladium, just because of the thickness difference > and the skin depth will still extend past the Nickel. Since the Nickel > thickness is the same for those two finish options, I expect the same > results. But that is opinion, not test data, and I didn't even run the skin > depth calculation, which is readily available. > > Wayne Thayer > > -----Original Message----- > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ricardo Moncaglieri > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:42 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: [TN] ENEPIG on Space RF (1-2GHz) Applications > > ----- RESENT ----- > > Dear Colleagues, > We are facing a space RF Radar application. In the past we have had > experience on RF RADAR freq. applications using TMM10 ROGERS IAu etc. We > have no experience using ENEPIG on space Radar (1-2GHz) applications. > We have been looking some papers refering to ENIG but not ENEPIG. > Will appreciate so far any of you can submit some data on this subject > better if as per own experience can ensure ENEPIG doesnt affect negativelly > RF pcb performance, loss, impedance etc Keep awaiting your unvaluable > feedback. > brgds,Ricardo > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________________________