Greetings Techet, The company I work for is investigating the purchase of several auto exposure systems to be used in the innerlayer, outerlayer, and soldermask imaging areas. We are interested in finding out who is using these types of systems and how are they are being used. We are interested in the following items: 1) lot sizes being imaged, 2) film setup procedures (time required) 3) technology being produced 4) # of workers per machine, 5) film changes per hour 6) cycle time per exposure Also we would be interested in this type of equipment could be financially justified (ie through headcount reduction, scrap/rework reduction, registration improvement) We are currently struggling with finding an acceptable IRR for this equipment and would like to get some further ideas on the topic of justification. One idea we came up with was the reduction of annular ring and how that would save us money in the drill room and on the plating floor. Because these systems have improved registration +/-25um, you should be able reduce your annular ring by using a larger drill size. (big drills cost less than small drills) This would in turn decrease your effective aspect ratio and hopefully widen your ability to plate these holes. (it is easier to plate a 3:1 AR board than a 4:1AR board) Is this a valid assumption? If any of you out there have any feedback it would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Josh Moody Process Engineer Merix Corp. [log in to unmask] *************************************************************************** * TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 * *************************************************************************** * To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: * * [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. * ***************************************************************************