Author Archives: Mike

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

Full Circle

Posted on by

When IPC released a statement this week touting Congress’s recognition of the “vital role of the printed board industry in ensuring national security,” it brought a smile to my face.

Years ago – at least 15 – when I was just a staff flunky at IPC, we rejoiced when, after hundreds of thousands of dollars and who-knows how many man-hours of time, the US House passed a resolution recognizing printed wiring board manufacturers as an industry critical to the well being and security of the United States. This is an important first step, we convinced ourselves. Now, Congress will really get behind us, we cheered, hopefully.

A few years later, more or less the entire industry moved to China. Congress didn’t say a word.

You see, we also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help bring the Printed Circuit Investment Act of 1997, a bill that was to cut equipment depreciation from five years to three, to the floor, where it died a quick death.

Still, we enjoyed the opportunity to rub shoulders with legislators was so enticing, IPC tried again in 1999 and 2001.

No dice.

In fact, Congress didn’t act until March 11, 2002, six months to the day after planes flew into buildings across the Eastern seaboard.

Are printed circuit boards vital to American security? No question. Does Congress really give a hoot? Probably not. After all, if they didn’t when the US was the leading PCB industry in the world, why would they now? After 15 years or so of trying, have we learned anything about how Congress works? By all evidence, no.

But we can dream.

Money Men

Posted on by

A bipartisan group of 14 senators announced yesterday plans to introduce a new bill aimed at cracking down on government manipulation of foreign currencies (read: China).

Such a measure is certain to launch a reciprocal broadside, but has been overdue as the Chinese historically have undervalued the yuan by 25 to 40%.

Sooner or later, the two biggest kids on the block always fight. I’m looking forward to this one.

Parts Wars Heat Up

Posted on by

Those who think the higher demand will necessarily improve profits might need have some rethinking to do in light of the latest forecasts for chip sales.

New Ventures Research last night issued a report indicating chip demand (units) would soar 18% in 2010, with memory in particular under siege. However, companies like Samsung are now saying they will not increase capex this year to meet the spike, meaning last year’s severe dropoff in investment for new fab capacity will be felt for some time to come.

Let the parts wars begin.

Enhancing US Competitiveness

Posted on by

President Obama yesterday continued to preach the need for the US to dramatically increase its exports, but there’s an element missing in the equation.

In remarks at the Export-Import Bank annual conference, Pres. Obama reiterated a stated goal of doubling US exports over the next five years. According to published reports, he called boosting exports a “short-term imperative” that would pay off in higher US employment and long-term economic stability. That’s a worthy – if perhaps unachievable – objective, and one that would go a long way toward resolving the country’s longstanding one-sided trade practices.

In his talk, Pres. Obama pinpointed to certain specific actions to help steer toward that goal, including US IP protection, enforcement of existing agreements and ratification of new ones (e.g., the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement),shortening governmental reviews of certain high-tech exports from 30 days to 30 minutes, and new agreements for Pan-Pacific trade.

But what was missing in his remarks was a strategy for enhancing the competitiveness of US businesses on the world stage. Despite perception, it’s true the US remains the world’s largest manufacturer – and by a large margin. But the US is losing ground in certain critical industries – electronics being one – where competitors have overtly or covertly signaled intentions to snare as much of the pie as possible.

I would like to see the US government invest in companies seeking to achieve true “lights out” manufacturing. While the direct impact on employment would be nominal, rebuilding the domestic manufacturing infrastructure requires a local supply base – materials and equipment providers, service specialists, programmers, etc. – something the US is in danger of completely losing. While I don’t envision massive technology parks here made up of the entire electronics supply chain, the needs to be an ample domestic market to ensure the sources of supply do not dwindle to a small number of distributors.

Missing Code in Toyota Claim

Posted on by

Toyota today claimed Prof. David Gilbert’s testimony on the sudden unintended acceleration isn’t representative of real world situations.

However – and this is important – Toyota makes no mention (at least in this report) about Gilbert’s more important finding: that Toyota’s on-board computers contain no defect code for the problem, which speaks to the reason the company’s diagnosis is (according to several experts) incorrect.

The Patty Chronicles: Leaning on Suppliers

Posted on by

Patty was checking her email. She noticed a note from someone who had attended last night’s SMTA meeting. She had just been elected chapter president, after giving a talk on the head-in-pillow defect.

In her talk, she also shared how important it was to work closely with your materials and equipment suppliers. To her, it was obvious that her suppliers were interested in her success. If they were competent, why shouldn’t she rely on them for technical information and help? If she didn’t think they were competent, she should get new suppliers. She was surprised at how much “push back” she got from the attendees. Several stated that they felt that suppliers where just out to make a sale and that a smart person just bought from the supplier with the cheapest price.

Patty found this perspective negative and self-destructive. She was sure that 60% of all process knowledge was learned from her suppliers, either in person or at the technical conferences. She felt the main reason to go to these shows was the technical program. And some of the best papers were presented by the better equipment and materials suppliers. One of their marketing VPs even told her, “We believe that the more technical help we give our customers, the more successful we will be.”

Well, wasn’t that a condensation of what good business should be like? He who helps his customer is the most successful, she thought.

As she was thinking these thoughts a new email popped up on her PC. It was from Hal Lindsay, a noted curmudgeon. Patty read on.

“I heard you telling some of the people at the meeting last night that lead-free assembly had some process advantages. Hogwash. Lead-free has no process advantages, and it’s not needed,” he started.

After a few more complaints, he finished, “It’s because of young tree-huggers like you that never stood up and fought lead-free that we are in this mess to begin with.”

In preparing her response, Patty’s mind went back to some conversations about this she had had with The Professor. He had made two strong points:

1. The first purpose of RoHS is to make recycling safer. So much recycling unsafe processes is performed in poor countries with unsafe practices. RoHS-compliant products will save the lives of the unfortunate people who have to perform this type of recycling to survive.

2.  Lead-free soldering is challenging because the solder does not wet as well. This situation forced us to develop assembly processes with tighter process windows. However, an initially unseen benefit is that tighter lead spacings are possible with lead-free soldering because of this poor wetting. Many portable products such as mobile phones could not be assembled with leaded solder. There would be too many shorts.

Patty was including this information in her response to grumpy Mr. Lindsay, when the phone rang. It was Rob.

He began, “?????????????ACME???????????????????????????”

(For our few readers that can’t read Mandarin: “It looks like I will be traveling to China to visit some of ACME’s new factories there. I think you will be going to work on some soldering issues too.”)

“Whoa!,” Patty exclaimed, “Why would you be going to visit ACME’s factories in China?”

Rob went on, “You know things haven’t been going well here at AJAX, we never adopted “Lean Sigma” techniques like ACME did. Today, we had a layoff and I got hit.”

“Yikes!” screamed Patty. Her mind went through many scenarios with Rob being unemployed five weeks before their wedding.

“Easy,” Rob implored. “My GM called me in and said that he was sorry to see me go, but being a friend with your GM, he got me a job at ACME. I am to be the liaison for the three factories that ACME has in China. My fleuncy in Mandarin made the difference,” he finished.

Patty and Rob were unusual for Americans in that they both spoke Spanish and Mandarin. Both had fathers who encouraged them to take Mandarin at Tech as they had both taken many years of Spanish in high school. Both did a language study abroad (LSA) term and an internship in China. As their dads said, “If you can speak English, Spanish, and Mandarin, you can speak to almost any professional in the world.” Both Patty and Rob found that their language skills gave them a ready bond when they were abroad. One German colleague even told Patty that she was the only American he knew that would not fit the European view of Americans when they ask, “Are you bilingual, trilingual or American?”

After Patty calmed down, she asked Rob why he thought she would be going.

He responded, “When your GM gave me the job offer on the phone, he alluded to a team visit to China, by me and this genius young woman that is a process expert. Apparently, they have some head-in-pillow, graping and productivity issues. I will be handling the business aspects, you the technical. He also mentioned he would like The Professor to go. I don’t think he knows we are engaged.”

Patty congratulated Rob and finished to conversation. She hoped that their being married wouldn’t create any issues in working together. She also was a little annoyed that she always seemed to be the last to know about trips that the executives were planning for her and her team. It was especially annoying that Pete seemed always know before her when they would need to go on one of their adventures. After all, she was Pete’s boss. Well, at least this time it was Rob, not Pete. There is now way Pete could know about this potential adventure.

She went back to finishing her note to cranky Hal Lindsay when she heard, “Pack your bags kiddo, it looks like China this time. Oh, and Rob is going.”

Cheers,
Dr. Ron

I saw Patty at a recent SMTA meeting.  I mentioned that many of her fans would like to see a photo of her.  Surprisingly, neither of us had a camera.  As you remember she is also a self taught artist,  I asked if she would mind sketching herself.   Here tis.

The reflow image of leaded and lead-free solder coutesy of Motorola.

All the best,

Dr. Ron

Fake Numbers

Posted on by

I’m all for putting the flood of fake parts under the microscope.

But I take umbrage at the phony figures of the cost of counterfeits being floated by certain trade groups.

NEDA, for instance, claims in a Business Week story this week that fake parts costs the electronics industry up to $100 billion a year. Well, many economists peg the entire value of the electronics industry at roughly $1.2 trillion, give or take a hundred billion. So by NEDA’s accounting, fake parts cost us about 8% or so of the entire annual net worth of the global market.

I ask you: Does that sound even remotely plausible? And if not, does such blatant hyperbole come across as crying “wolf,” undercutting our attempts to sound the alarm on the problem?

Where’s There’s Toyota, There’s Fire

Posted on by

The sudden unintended acceleration problems in Toyota’s vehicles have touched off a firestorm of controversy over the cause(s). Now, a professor of automotive technology at Southern Illinois University has entered the fray, testifying before Congress that the trouble locating the problem’s source could stem from a missing defect code in the affected fleet’s diagnostic computer.

In testimony before a house subcommittee  Tuesday, David W. Gilbert, a Ph.D. with almost 30 years experience in automotive diagnostics and troubleshooting, said his initial investigation has found problems with the “integrity and consistency” of Toyota’s electronic control modules to detect potential throttle malfunctions.

Specifically, Prof. Gilbert disputed the notion that every defect would necessarily have an associated code. The “absence of a stored diagnostic trouble code in the vehicle’s computer is no guarantee that a problem does not exist.”

In fact, using a 2010 Toyota Tundra, Prof. Gilbert discovered electrical circuit faults could indeed be introduced into the electronic throttle control system without setting a diagnostic trouble code. “Without a diagnostic trouble code set, the vehicle computer will not logically enter into a fail-safe mode of operation. … Since the vehicle computer will only react to defective sensor inputs outside of the range of programmed limitations if the circuit is not defective; it must be good.” In other words, because a code did not exist for the sensor to inform the on-board computer of a problem, when a short occurred the computer did not recognize the problem, and therefore it took no steps to mitigate it. And absent the code, no defect was entered into the database for post-incident tracking.

Prof. Gilbert further determined that electronic control module malfunction detection strategies were not sufficient to
identify all types of fundamental APP sensor and/or circuit malfunctions. “Some types of electronic throttle control circuit malfunctions were detectable by the ECM, and some were not,” he testified. “Most importantly, the Toyota detection strategies were unable to identify malfunctions of the APP sensor signal inputs to the ECM.” (Watch this video of Dr Griffin’s test at his university test track.)

Yikes! If Prof. Gilbert is correct, this could explain why Toyota engineers have failed to diagnose the electronics as a potential source of sudden unintended acceleration. As one reliability expert told me, this could be the smoking gun.

We await Toyota’s response to this revelation.