Avi, Each of these direct metallization processes has something going for it. They can each point to proof sources which would indicate to you that they are fully capable of processing Military PWB PTHs. So you could get (and sound) confused as to how to make the decision on which process to choose. My advice is to choose a process which fits well in your shop if you are a PWB fabricator. A survey of the processes would give you a good idea of how they run. I would then get suppliers to audit your shop to show you how their process would run and what exact advantages (i.e. cost, labor, material, scrap) your shop would see with their process. If a supplier will not do this, they should not be considered. Check with the proof sources these suppliers give you for confirmation of the value of the direct metallization process. I have noted that some of these folk list their proof sources in their ads in trade magazines. Ask the proof source questions on how they run the process, what type of PTHs they plate, what testing they have done, HOW OFTEN THEY HAVE TO CLEAN THEIR MACHINES, what process controls they run, they might even give you process cost and savings data. Then I would send out test panels to the smaller list of suppliers I would consider. I would make these panels to be a type which gives you problems through your current PTH line. If the supplier wanted to put a copper strike on these panels, I wouldn't object. Some acid coppers do not work well plating direct metallized surfaces. The suppliers should be able to tell you this when they do their audit. Test these panels per IPC-6012, class 3. Choose those processes which pass your testing. Now your decision comes down to the information you have gathered plus the cost of installing the process (capital, chemistry, etc.). Which process gives you the most confidence technically, is the easiest to control, gives you the best cost savings to run, is best supported by the supplier in whom you have confidence and is it worth the expense to put it into your shop. That is the process I would say anyone would have to go through when moving into the direct metallization world. By the way, I DO have MY opinion on the best direct metallization process for military or any applications. However, that very well might not be the answer for you. Anyone who gives you a direct answer to this without encouraging you to go through the above process is doing you a disservice. Good luck. Regards, Dave Sullivan Rockwell Collins, Inc [log in to unmask] ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Direct metallization for MIL grade PCBs. Author: [log in to unmask] at ccmgw1 Date: 1/15/97 12:34 PM Hi there, I would like to know which is THE most reliable method of DIRECT METALLIZATION for MIL grade PCBs. Do I use Pallidum or Carbon or Ploymers???? My e-mail address is [log in to unmask] Thanks in advance. avi. *************************************************************************** * 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. * *************************************************************************** * If you are having a problem with the IPC TechNet forum please contact * * Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask] * *************************************************************************** Received: from by ccmgw1.cacd.rockwell.com (SMTPLINK V2.11) ; Wed, 15 Jan 97 12:33:53 cst Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]> Received: from stealth.cacd.rockwell.com (stealth) by mailserv with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/16.2) id AA121453232; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:33:52 -0600 Received: by stealth.cacd.rockwell.com; id MAA26399; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:33:43 -0600 Received: from unknown(168.113.24.64) by stealth via smap (V3.1.1) id xma026389; Wed, 15 Jan 97 12:33:20 -0600 Received: from ipc.org by simon.ipc.org via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) id MAA06122; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:23:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:23:03 -0800 Received: by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0vkZYf-0000YFC; Wed, 15 Jan 97 11:55 CST Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask] Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]> From: [log in to unmask] Date: 15 Jan 97 20:52 GMT+0500 X400-Trace: IN*VSNL*SPRINTRPG; Arrival 15 Jan 97 20:52 GMT+0500 Action: Relayed X400-Trace: in*vsnl*; Arrival 15 Jan 97 21:32 EST Action: Relayed Priority: normal Ua-Content-Id: PBB2365 36 P1-Message-Id: IN*VSNL*SPRINTRPG;HJJH-2787-1472/36 Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text To: [log in to unmask] Message-Id: <HJJH-2787-1472/36*[log in to unmask]> Subject: Direct metallization for MIL grade PCBs. Resent-Message-Id: <"m5GiJ3.0.R1M.CeHto"@ipc> Resent-From: [log in to unmask] X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/9238 X-Loop: [log in to unmask] Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [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. * *************************************************************************** * If you are having a problem with the IPC TechNet forum please contact * * Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask] * ***************************************************************************