About Mike

Mike Buetow is president of the Printed Circuit Engineering Association (pcea.net). He previously was editor-in-chief of Circuits Assembly magazine, the leading publication for electronics manufacturing, and PCD&F, the leading publication for printed circuit design and fabrication. He spent 21 years as vice president and editorial director of UP Media Group, for which he oversaw all editorial and production aspects. He has more than 30 years' experience in the electronics industry, including six years at IPC, an electronics trade association, at which he was a technical projects manager and communications director. He has also held editorial positions at SMT Magazine, community newspapers and in book publishing. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois. Follow Mike on Twitter: @mikebuetow

IPC-2581 ‘Chat’ Recap

We had nearly 1,000 visitors to today’s PCB Chat on IPC-2581. The moderators, led including Gary Carter of Fujitsu, answered more than 20 questions in a chat that lasted almost twice as long as planned. (The moderators plan to respond to some of the other questions they received that they couldn’t get to during the chat, so be sure to check back in a few days and see the updated transcript.) You may also contact them directly with questions at www.ipc2581.com/index.php/about.

The results show that data transfer is an area of high interest to the industry. The committee will be presenting a poster next week at IPC Apex Expo and will also have a booth there, where members can answer your questions about the new standard.

Speaking of Apex, on March 2 I will moderate a chat on the show. As always, we’ll open the chat to questions a few days early.

2581 Hits a Milestone

For years one of the hangups for any data transfer format hoping to supplant Gerber has been the lack of independent validations that the output from a given CAD tool could be accurately read in CAM.

That’s why the IPC-2581 Consortium is right to herald today’s announcement of not one four independent validations as a “significant milestone.”

Today the Consortium published a validation matrix showing data output in Cadence Allegro and Zuken CR5000 has been correlated and validated against typical proprietary and multi-file manufacturing formats by Adiva, Wise, EasyLogix and DownStream. Those CAM vendors also are launching viewers — free, in most cases — to help users compare the data themselves.

The Consortium will take its show on the road next week, presenting a paper at Apex and also at the Cadence users group meeting in March. Both events represent an opportune time to question the members on their progress. If you can’t make the conferences, tune in to PCB Chat on Feb. 22, where the members will answer questions in our new online moderated chat forum.

Off to the Races: Creating Winning Finishes

As promised, we are off to the races, untangling the convoluted subject of PCB surface finishes. This is a complicated subject, so bear with me as I try to break it down into bite-sized, manageable portions! This week I will discuss each available surface finish and the pros and cons of each one. Below is my version of SparkNotes for surface finishes:

PCB Surface Finish Comparison Chart

HASL

Tin/Lead

HASL

(Lead-free)

ENIG

Immersion

Silver

Immersion

Tin

ENEPIG

Electrolytic

Nickel-(Hard or Soft)Gold

RoHS Compliant

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Fabrication Costs

Low

Low

Med

Med

Med

High

High

Shelf Life

1 Year

1 Year

1 Year

9-12 Months

9-12 Months

1 Year

1 Year

Themal Excursions

In Assembly

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

Wire Bonding

No

No

Yes/No

Yes/No

No

Yes

Yes

Low Resistance/High Speed

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Soundness of Solder Joints

Excellent

Good

Good

Excellent

Good

Good

Good

Coplanarity

Poor

Good

Good

Excellent

Excellent

Excellent

Excellent

Wettability

Excellent

Good

Good

Excellent

Good

Good

Good

As I mentioned in my previous blog post, many designers working with high speed digital, RF or Microwave applications are using ENIG, ENEPIG and Electrolytic Hard or Soft gold these days. From the chart above, you can see why; these finishes offer many desired properties. However, if wire bonding is required, the field is narrowed to Immersion Silver, ENEPIG, and Electrolytic gold. Here at Transline we are often asked what the difference is between hard and soft gold: quite simply it is the purity of the gold; the purer the gold, the softer the finish. Among all finishes widely available, silver has the best conductivity.

The Tradeoffs

Many engineers and designers report significant signal loss from the nickel that is plated beneath all gold applications. As the desire for greater speeds increase, many are looking for ways to eliminate, or reduce loss due to undesirable resistivity from plating finishes. In the plating process, gold cannot be plated directly over copper for a couple of reasons. First of all, some copper gets chemically dissolved into the plating tanks, tainting the gold purity and the very costly gold bath. Secondly, on the board surface the copper and gold become diffused and mingled not allowing the gold to plate over the top of the copper. Nickel, therefore, is applied over the copper to act as a barrier to prevent these two undesirable effects. It is for this reason that many are looking to ENEPIG (Electroless Nickel, Electroless Palladium, and Immersion Gold). The Palladium is far less resistive, and due to the “skin effect,” the signal travels to the outermost areas of the circuit—through the low resistive Palladium and Gold. The only downfall for this finish is that it is more costly, and may or may not take more time since most PCB suppliers do not have palladium tanks in their facilities, and rely on outside plating services.

With greater frequency, designers are turning to Immersion silver. The drawbacks to Immersion Silver include the inability for fine wire bonding and oxidation. Oxidation can be avoided or delayed by packaging with sulfur-free packaging materials and storing in temperatures less than 95 degrees Fahrenheit. Some mild oxidation can be easily cleaned away. Any unused boards should be resealed for proper storage.

Conclusion

As you can see, plating finishes offer a series of tradeoffs in cost, performance and function. Each designer needs to carefully consider the requirements that are unique to a given project or application. I hope this information helps to clarify what the general pros and cons are of the various surface finishes available.

Next Installment

Next time, I will dig a bit deeper into this subject and discuss the impact of copper smoothness and “skin effect” and how each may help you make decisions about the surface finish. Thanks to all of you who sent me emails and questions on this subject! Keep the comments and questions coming here, or to my email: [email protected]

Further reading:

www.taconic-add.com/pdf/technicalarticles–effectsofsurfacefinish.pdf

www.ddmconsulting.com/Design_Guides/hasl_alt.pdf

— Judy

An Early Spring?

The second half of 2011 is behind us, literally and figuratively.

2011 roared out of the starting blocks before veering off the recovery path beginning in the late summer or early fall. Around November, many forecasters were predicting the doldrums to remain through summer 2012. (Some are hewing this line.)

It looks like the industry wasn’t listening. Green shoots were already beginning to emerge, some forced to the surface by one-time events like the Thailand flooding, but others due to pent-up demand by consumers and businesses.

Several large and mid-tier EMS companies, including MFlex, Flextronics, CTS, Viasystems and Key Tronic have reported December quarter revenues that topped previous expectations. Component manufacturers and foundries like Vishay and UMC are calling a bottom. Broader manufacturing indices are looking better.

I think there remains a considerable amount of inventory in the chain, but much of this is held at distributors. Thus, models that heavily weight component manufacturer revenues are going to be a bit off while the rest of the chain works through their inventory conditions. But demand down the line is improving, and I think come this time next year, we will look at the September 2011 period as the trough.

Upcoming Chats

SMT process consultant Phil Zarrow’s moderated chat is today at 2pm Eastern.

You don’t need to make the live session in order to ask a question: questions may be submitted in advance.

Future chats will cover data transfer, PCB cleaning, environmental regulations and MSDS tracking, and on March 2 yours truly will take questions on this year’s Apex trade show.

Money Talks

Designers, start checking your in-boxes for the annual PCD&F Salary Survey. In the next few days an email from UP Media will be go out containing the link to the survey.

Let me know if you don’t get the survey; we really want your input.

Chatting It Up

Fresh off the success of our premiere PCB Chat, we have quite a few more planned.

Tomorrow (Feb. 7), SMT process consultant Phil Zarrow will take your questions. Designers may remember Phil from some of the past PCB West and PCB East conferences, where he spoke on DfM/DfA.

Next week we will host the IPC-2581 Consortium, taking questions on the new data transfer standard.

On March 2, yours truly will discuss the IPC Apex Expo trade show.

We begin accepting questions for the chats a few days early, so don’t worry if you can’t make the live event. Transcripts are available in real-time and after, too.

Chatting Away

We had a great premiere of PCB Chat last week. Eric Bogatin, the signal integrity guru, hosted the nearly two hour session, answering more than 20 questions.

The transcript can be seen here (you must be signed in to Printed Circuit University to view it; registration is free).

The next chat will be Feb. 7 with SMT process consultant Phil Zarrow. Note that you don’t need to make the live session in order to ask a question: questions may be submitted in advance.

If you have recommendations for future moderators, drop me a line or post in the comments. Thanks!