A look back at friends and colleagues who left us in 2011.
2011 will likely be recalled as a transitive year, one in which we took stock of the pros and cons of various geographies and business models as we tried to come to grips with very uncertain economic times. It will also be recalled as the year we lost some of the industry’s biggest names from all ends of the design and manufacturing spectrum, from Steve Jobs to Werner Engelmaier. This month we reflect on their impact on our industry and our lives.
Steve Jobs, 56, cofounder and face of Apple, PC apostle and tech visionary.
Frank Coultard, 69, salesman for Nelco from 1982 to 1998, and technical director of the Printed Circuit Interconnection Federation.
Steven J. Adamson, engineer and inventor at Asymtek, Motorola and Kodak, and past IMAPS president.
Paul E. Lotosky, 55, director of technical support, Cookson Electronics, where he worked for 33 years; CIRCUITS ASSEMBLY columnist.
Lewis Gordon, 73, founder of circuit board manufacturer Midland Standard Industries.
Francis A. Schneiders, 84, worked at Enthone for 42 years, beginning in 1950 as a research chemist and ultimately for 17 years as president.
Bob Pease, 70, analog guru, prolific author and inventor, and industry legend.
Jim Williams, 63, staff scientist, Linear Technology, National Semiconductor, Arthur D. Little, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dimitry Grabbe, 83, retired AMP Inc. director of research and technology, inventor, and founder of Maine Research Corp.
Wang Ling, 25, Foxconn engineer.
Unidentified male (John Doe), 20, Foxconn worker.
Unidentified male (John Doe), 21, Foxconn worker.
Chen Long, age unknown, Foxconn worker.
Niu Xiaobei, age unknown, Foxconn company intern.
Kenneth Olsen, 84, Digital Equipment Corp. cofounder who famously said he couldn’t imagine why a person would want a computer in their home.
Rudolf Picavet, 62, former IBM and Celestica employee.
Joseph Thomas (Tom) West, 71, Data General chief technologist, protagonist of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Soul of a New Machine.
Werner Engelmaier, 72, former Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff, AT&T Bell Labs, and perhaps the industry’s preeminent expert on solder joint reliability.
Sidney Harman, 92, stereo equipment designer and pioneer.
Constance L. “Connie” Bennett, 64, former IBM and Celestica worker.
John A. Josifek, 67, owned PCB fabricators Electro-Fab and Croix Circuits.
Dr. Bill Kenyon, 74, retired DuPont chemist; cleaning guru.
“Natural Disasters and Business Disruption: How Can Electronics Companies Evaluate and Mitigate Their Risk?” Author: Harvey Stone; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Abstract: Businesses in the electronics industry face increasingly turbulent times. This paper focuses on one particular kind of turbulence: so-called “acts of God”; i.e., natural disasters like floods, droughts, waves, fires and other extreme weather events. It is increasingly critical for all types and sizes of businesses to understand more fully 1) what “Act of God” means; 2) the way human and business activity exacerbates the number and intensity of natural disasters; 3) the financial costs related to natural disasters; 4) leading-edge methods by which businesses are protecting against these natural disasters; and 5) the ways businesses are capitalizing on natural disasters to enter new markets and generate new revenue. Furthermore, it is important for electronics companies to be aware of the growing business-disruption threats from issues related to the earth’s carrying capacity issues that are not directly linked to natural disasters, but are greatly exacerbated by natural disasters. (SMTA International, October 2011)
Component Libraries
“Library Management – Building the Perfect Library” Author: Zuken Corp. Abstract: Component selection is critical in the product design cycle. The designer must review and compare component data so that an immediate accurate selection can be made. EDA libraries can incorporate component management systems where specifications, lifecycle, supplier, simulation models and assembly information is stored, facilitating proper component selection. (ZDAC, November 2011)
Final Finishes
“Comparison of Several PCB Final Finishes in a Mixed Flowing Gas Test Environment” Authors: Robert Veale and James Trainor; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Abstract: One consideration of PCB final finish selection is the susceptibility to creep corrosion in environments containing atmospheric sulfur. In this study, several final finishes were subjected to a Battelle Class III mixed flow gas test to assess creep corrosion susceptibility. PCB finish coatings tested were Pb-free HASL, direct palladium, immersion silver, OSP, ENIG and ENIPEG. The assessment method was an end-point visual examination focusing on the extent of creep corrosion products. (SMTA International, October 2011)
Nanophysics
“Nanoparticle Superlattice Engineering with DNA” Authors: Robert J. Macfarlane, Byeongdu Lee, Matthew R. Jones, Nadine Harris, George C. Schatz, Chad A. Mirkin; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Abstract: A current limitation in nanoparticle superlattice engineering is that the identities of the particles being assembled often determine the structures that can be synthesized. Therefore, specific crystallographic symmetries or lattice parameters can only be achieved using specific nanoparticles as building blocks (and vice versa). Presented are six design rules that can be used to deliberately prepare nine distinct colloidal crystal structures, with control over lattice parameters on the 25- to 150-nanometer length scale. These design rules outline a strategy to independently adjust each of the relevant crystallographic parameters, including particle size (5 to 60nm), periodicity and interparticle distance. As such, this work represents an advance in synthesizing tailorable macroscale architectures comprising nanoscale materials in a predictable fashion. (Science, Oct. 14, 2011, sciencemag.org/content/334/6053/204.abstract)
A good diversity program makes it possible for top talent to succeed.
During this year’s SMTA International, I had the pleasure of attending my first electronics industry women’s networking event. It wasn’t the first year for this event. IPC has held a women’s networking breakfast at its conferences for several years. However, it was the first time my schedule had synced up with the event. And, to be honest, after 30-plus years of working in a male-dominated industry, networking events with the word “women” in the title weren’t high on my priority list. Women who have spent their careers in an evolving electronics industry found the best path to success was to work hard and do our best to outperform fellow team members. For the most part, we didn’t talk about the things that made us uncomfortable out of fear that it would get us labeled as overly sensitive or reinforce the fact that we were “different” from most of our peers. The concept of mentoring was also alien because there simply wasn’t a large pool of women in senior positions or structured mentoring programs. The industry is far better now in terms of management gender diversity and management development training. HP and IBM are now led by women. When I started teaching IPC EMS Program Management certification courses in 2003, it was rare to see more than one or two women. The last one I taught had more women enrolled than men.
So, if trends are improving, what is the benefit of additional discussion? As a woman I’ve seen practices that encourage productivity and growth and practices that increase the overall cost of human capital by increasing turnover or motivating poor performance or employee-related litigation. Glass ceilings aren’t the result of intentional discrimination. They occur because the person we trust most looks back at us in the mirror every morning. We tend to trust and promote those who subconsciously remind us of ourselves. In a diverse environment that can result in a diverse team, but in an environment where there is a dominant management demographic, those who vary from the norm may be overlooked for choice assignments and higher-level promotions. And knowledge gaps can be career killers. The village idiot who reminds the boss of himself when he was younger gets coached when he makes a mistake. The person who is different gets criticized or labeled as a b-lister when a mistake is made. However, workplace diversity continues to increase, and being different is becoming the new normal. There are differences in attitudes generationally and culturally, as well as by gender. Non-biased teambuilding becomes even more important to ensure that differences coalesce into strengths.
The goal of a good diversity program shouldn’t be to create a politically correct environment where everyone tiptoes around, afraid of saying the wrong thing. Nor should it shift the “balance of power” from one group to another. Instead, it should attract top talent, educate them on corporate values, and provide the encouragement and safety nets needed for that talent to be productive and grow, regardless of gender, national origin, race, religion or any other “difference” that makes an individual a minority in their workplace. In short, the right focus builds bridges between team members, rather than emphasizing differences, and focuses on performance to clearly defined goals.
The real question today for the 21st Century isn’t, “How well do you treat women or any other minority group in your company?” Instead, it’s, “Is your company doing the right level of focused recruiting, mentoring and performance measurement to ensure an adequate pool of talent in critical job functions over time?” If you are doing the right things to develop a diverse talent pool, everyone benefits.
The challenge for companies in a margin-sensitive industry becomes finding the resources to support these efforts. Not easy, since the most important element in creating a level playing field in technical careers actually starts in high school.
Interestingly enough, I see smaller companies addressing this challenge sometimes more aggressively than their larger competitors because they tend to be more closely linked to their communities. While larger companies may focus on broader science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) initiatives, smaller companies may take a more hands-on approach. As an example, one plastics company CEO I know cultivates the high school and technical school counselors in his area, because he understands that if they don’t understand manufacturing career paths, they can’t guide students into picking the right classes to succeed. I’ve also seen EMS companies work with community college and university manufacturing technology and engineering programs to ensure their curricula are aligned with knowledge needs. My master’s degree from the University of Alabama-Huntsville was the result of one such effort. Back in the 80s, the larger technology corporations in that region (including two EMS companies) worked with the local university system to define evening curriculums that met their job skill requirements and allowed their employees to more easily attend classes and earn advanced degrees. Those companies also had tuition refund programs available to full-time employees that paid for the classes. It was a great system that created value for both employees and employers.
We will continue this conversation next time.
Susan Mucha is president of Powell-Mucha Consulting Inc. (powell-muchaconsulting.com), and author of Find It. Book It. Grow It. A Robust Process for Account Acquisition in Electronics Manufacturing Services; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
A lofty idea on margin improvement comes crashing down.
It hit me all at once, and so fast, like a speeding bullet – an epiphany of how to fix a whole bunch of problems that have plagued my company and our industry for too long.
And where did it happen? On an airplane, of all places. And in the very small “extra room” seat I had treated myself to. (Actually, my “treat” wasn’t by choice. When I booked the ticket, the only available seats on the then mostly empty flight were “extra room” – and extra cost - seats. Kind of ticked me off at the time, but that’s another story.)
So there I was, crammed in my seat, setting to review my company’s budget. We were having a pretty good year, I thought, but for some reason margins were thinner than expected. What could I do to improve margin, optimally by increasing pricing, as we have been hacking away at costs for as long as I could remember, with little left to cut?
I did not get far in my thoughts before the flight attendant tapped my shoulder and began asking if I was “able, willing and capable” of assisting the flight crew in the “unlikely” event of an emergency landing. Seems that my “extra room” seat was in an emergency row, and I had to respond positively that I would and could assist. I nodded, then resumed my thoughts regarding margins, pricing and the bottom line. As I was jotting down some ideas, the flight attendant leaned over and asked to take my drink order. He also offered a choice of various snacks, any of which I could purchase for a mere $5 fee (no cash, please). I rifled through my wallet, found a credit card, purchased my “flight meal” and munched away as I got back to the challenge at hand. What a frustrating dilemma: Cut costs and I cut into the organizational marrow. Raise prices and my customers will push back. What is an entrepreneur to do?
As we were about to land, I started to pack away my calculator, pad, pencil, and laptop into my briefcase. I also decided to grab my jacket from the overhead bin. I would need that extra time: I did not want to pay the fee for checked bags, but there was no room in the luggage compartment above my seat, so the flight attendant found a place for it – in an overhead bin six rows behind me. I would have to wait until most of the 15 rows behind me were off the plane before I could shuffle back for the bag.
And that’s when the epiphany occurred: In my ire over having to wait to fight my way down the aisle for my bag, the $10 fee that prompted the situation, a lousy seat where I was also responsible for the safety of passengers and crew, and a lousy snack that used to be free – the solution to my eroding margin (not to mention the industry’s declining “value proposition,” as manifested in ever lower prices), was right in front of me. All we have to do is price product (or “service,” for design or EMS folks) as the airlines do! So simple, so elegant – such a solution!
Just imagine, it matters not what the price of the “circuit board” is. Like the airlines, discount the hell out of the “seat price,” since that’s not what customers pay for. And they don’t pay for solder mask, or for the number of holes or technology, either. Give them the most dense umpteen layer microvia, mixed construction, embedded, gold-plated HDI board you can imagine. Drop that price; it does not matter!
What does matter is charging fees for all the things that customers have come to expect, but are willing to or by necessity must pay for. Want a quote? Sure: You can talk to one of our technologically savvy customer service staff, who will charge you a premium, or go to your computer to access our web portal for the “best available price.” Have questions about that quote? Pay a small fee, per question. More than one question, more than one fee!
It gets better. Want to convert that quote into an order? No problem. Just a couple of questions and you will be on your way. First, what delivery do you want for how many panels? Three-day (a big upcharge fee), 10-day (a smaller fee), three weeks (an even smaller fee) or, for no fee, there’s “standard?” Oops, no more standard deliveries are available, so you automatically need to pay the fee for three-week delivery! Will you pick up the product or have it delivered? For pickup, you pay just for boxes (as many as are needed) and packaging material, on top of a fee for our handling (packing the box). For delivery via UPS, FedEx (or whomever), you pay whatever they charge and a fee for printing the label/paperwork, as well as the packaging fees. Certificates of compliance? It’s a fee for each one: material(s), electrical test, impedance, plating thickness, ISO, MIL, AS, ITAR, etc. – all are available, each for an additional fee. And finally, how will you be paying for this? Credit or debit cards only.
At $25 each, it really adds up! Let’s see: two tech questions ($50) plus three-week delivery for one panel order ($25) utilizing one box – and packing ($50), plus shipping via UPS, plus paperwork ($25) with certificates for plating, material, ET, impedance, the quality documents ($200) all paid by credit card (which fixes cash-flow issues), for a total of $350 in fees on top of whatever the board price is. Now that’s what I call an epiphany!
Or is it? Industrial customers, like consumers, get ticked off when fees are applied. However, the difference is that, unlike us consumer fools, the industrial world won’t stand for it, and any company that embraces such pricing will be on the fast track to oblivion. Maybe it wasn’t such a hot idea after all.
Peter Bigelow is president and CEO of IMI (imipcb.com); This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. His column appears monthly.
Given the high cost of silver, it may be surprising at first glance to see low-silver alloys being met with what could only be called lukewarm enthusiasm. Despite the best efforts of Dr. Greg Henshall and a small band of other researchers and engineers, few companies have entered more than the preliminary testing phase.
This was in full evidence at Productronica last month. An unscientific sampling of the more than a dozen solder suppliers there suggests low-silver is not the panacea some had hoped when it was introduced. Why? Primarily because reliability and processing knowledge beat costs.
In case after case, we were informed that interest has been spotty, at best. Reliability in some applications is a question, and assemblers appear, well, fatigued from nearly 10 years of constantly testing and revising lead-free recipes. We know now that no lead-free solder is a drop-in replacement for eutectic tin-lead, a point most solder vendors have quietly stopped pressing. We’ve even heard some Japanese companies are quietly lobbying EU officials to relax the RoHS rules in order to – are you ready for this? – permit the use of solder in a wider array of electronics products. The reason: Tin-lead is more environmentally friendly than the alternatives.
That said, in a year that started out hot and is ending tepid, Productronica was pure gold. The show was a bit smaller from the exhibit side – which is not to say it wasn’t still huge – but veterans will recall when the U-Bahn stopped at both entrances of the massive New Munich Trade Fair Center. Some of those veterans, who will remain me, learned the hard way that the East entrance to the hall is no longer needed. Still, some restraint on the size of the exhibits has long been in order, and we began to witness mild evidence of that this year.
On the show floor, two stories emerged. One is the slow-motion separation of Yamaha and Assembléon, its primary distributor in North America and Europe. Although Assembléon may well sell as many placement machines as any company in the world (once units of its own lines are added in with those it sells on behalf of Yamaha), there is reason to believe a change is coming, and soon. At the show, Assembléon debuted a multifunctional platform called the iFlex, which potentially would compete with the Yamaha lines it reps. Meanwhile, Yamaha has been gearing up to establish a direct US and Europe sales and service presence, hiring staff (including an ex Assembléon manager) and developing a new channel with one of its longtime Asian distributors. It’s remarkable, after so many years of intense competitive pressures, that while some of the pick-and-place vendors have changed hands, none of them has consolidated. Just before the show, Yamaha and Assembléon re-upped their distribution agreement for one year, with an option for one more, but the future of the relationship has never been more in doubt.
On the fab side, robotics were the rage. The PCB fabrication exhibits have shrunk over the years and are now down to about one hall (although exhibitors were spread over two, intermingled with large lounge areas and contract assemblers). Ten years ago, Productronica featured lots of large plating and develop/etch/strip lines and lamination equipment designed for large and heavy backplanes. Meanwhile, machines shown at the CPCA Show in Shanghai could fit in a shoebox. That equation has completely flipped: Productronica is now characterized by ample models of small-scale prototype and batch production equipment. Still, the number and quality of lines far outpaces that of all other Western shows (namely IPC Apex/Expo). (We’ll have the full report next month, or you can check the Productronica 2011 section on the PCD&F and Circuits Assembly websites.)
Each year at this time, CIRCUITS ASSEMBLY names its EMS Company of the Year. Without giving too much away, we had to postpone the announcement one month because our 2011 winner has been busy dealing with a natural disaster. We’ll have the full story in January.
Also every December, this magazine reflects on our friends and colleagues who are no longer with us. While Steve Jobs was the biggest name in tech to pass away in 2011, the person I’ll miss the most is Werner Engelmaier. In my family, the biggest compliment that can be bestowed is to be called “tough.” Through the years I worked with Werner, I never saw him back down or acquiesce when he knew he was right. He always spoke his mind: truth trumped timidity. Werner was tough. Our best wishes for a safe holiday season.
Can a high-nitrogen-based material with special inorganic fillers stand up to Pb-free processing?
Some studies have found halogen-containing epoxy resin might produce hazardous carcinogenic gases, such as dioxin and furan, under certain combustion temperatures (i.e., <1000°C).1 Halogen-free flame retardants, which exclude tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), are becoming increasingly popular as a replacement. There are a variety of approaches to replacing TBBPA and other halogenated flame retardants. Among them, the majority of literature focuses on phosphorus-based products, which are predicted to be the largest growing share.2 However, eutrophication of rivers or lakes due to the hydrolysis of the phosphorus-based retardants has raised another environmental issue. Studies conducted by the Institute of Microelectronics indicate that phosphorus-based laminates absorb more than two times as much moisture as conventional laminates.2 Furthermore, phosphorus-based flame-retardants tend to form phosphoric acids under thermal stress, which might be a long-term reliability concern because of acidic degradation.2
With that in mind, we have developed a novel halogen-free, phosphorus-free material (named UP-160HPF) for PCB applications that can fulfill the environmental requirements, exhibit good characteristics and nonflammability without a high cost penalty.
Our objective was to develop a halogen-free, phosphorus-free resin system that contains a large quantity of nitrogen in the main molecular framework. By using a dual-hardener system, which acts as an incombustible-gas generator, the resin system exhibits inherent flame-retardant properties upon curing. Other beneficial characteristics include higher cross-linking density and low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE). Inorganic fillers with a correct choice of particle size, surface modification and proper dispersion, which can generally display synergistic effects in fire retardancy, were adopted. The flame-retardancy mechanism is known as a heat sink. When exposed to heat, the inorganic filler will decompose to release water vapor, which will cool the system, dilute burnable gases in the flame and create an oxide layer at the interface. The remaining metal oxides form a protective barrier on the polymer surface, shielding it against further decomposition and reducing the amount of toxic gases released.2 The combination of the formula has a flammability rating of UL-94-V0, without additional halogen-based or phosphorus-based flame retardants. The absence of antimony or phosphorus-based flame retardants also fulfills environmental requirements.
Novel Material Properties
Table 1 compares general properties of the novel material with those of conventional FR-4. The higher cross-linking structure of the novel materials results in a higher glass transition temperature (Tg). The near-zero shrinkage characteristic of the unique nitrogen-containing resin system and the dispersion in the resin of some amount of inorganic fillers restrain the z-axis expansion as well. This will lead to higher through-hole reliability.
Although the dielectric constant is slightly higher than that of conventional FR-4, since tan δ is smaller, according to Eq. 1, the transmission loss of conventional FR-4 is almost three times higher than that of the novel material.
α = K * f *ε1/2 * tanδ (Eq. 1)
where
α = transmission loss K = a factor f = signal frequency ε = dielectric constant Tanδ = dissipation factor or loss tangent.
Thermal resistance. Decomposition temperature (Td) by thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA) is one of the most important measures for determining the ability to withstand Pb-free processes. The TGA of the new resin system (Figure 1) is 40° higher than that of conventional FR-4.
Time to delamination is a test to determine the elapsed time at an elevated temperature, when a sudden and irreversible expansion, indicative of a delamination, occurs. Time to delamination at 260°C (T260) is a common measurement used to assess base material performance. With Pb-free assembly, temperatures of 288°C (T288) and 300°C (T300) are now used to evaluate materials. The T288 results (Figure 2) and (Table 2) indicate the new material is Pb-free assembly capable.
PCB Reliability and Processing Characteristics
Solder float was performed at 288°C for 10 sec. and Pb-free reflow with a 260°C peak temperature up to 15 cycles, respectively. There were no cracks or delamination in the boards under microscope.
Conductive anode filament (CAF) is a conductive copper-containing salt created by electrochemical migration. It is a significant and potentially dangerous source of electrical failure in the PCB.3 The anti-migration test vehicle (Figure 3) was prepared, and the test conditions were temperature=85°C, relative humidity=85%, DC=50V. No CAF was observed even after 2000 hr.
Innerlayer peel strength measurement after oxide processes (with assistance from Jetchem) was conducted per IPC-TM-650 and compared with conventional FR-4 and high Tg material (Figure 4). The results show the novel material’s performance is equivalent to conventional FR-4 and better than high Tg material. No significant differences were observed on peel strength between brown or black oxide. (Oxide chemicals were supplied by Jetchem.)
Furthermore, desmear process weight loss compared with conventional FR-4 (Figure 5) also shows equivalent results. (Desmear process was done by Jetchem permanganate system with a 12 min. reaction time.) The equivalent results permit more freedom for PCB vendors to design the processes and manage the shop floors.
Conclusion
A novel halogen-free, phosphorus-free material that can fulfill current environmental requirements has been described. The new material has lower dissipation factor, lower CTE (z-axis), exhibits good thermal characteristics and non-flammability without a high cost penalty. It is Pb-free compatible, and the major PCB processing conditions are almost equivalent to conventional FR-4. The new material is patent-pending in the US, Taiwan, Korea, China and Japan.
References
1. G. Söderström and S. Marklund, “PBCDD and PBCDF from Incineration of Waste-Containing Brominated Flame Retardants,” ES&T, vol. 36, 2002. 2. Muriel Rakotomalala, Sebastian Wagner and Manfred Döring, “Recent Developments in Halogen Free Flame Retardants for Epoxy Resins for Electrical and Electronic Applications,” Materials, August 2010. 3. George Morose, “An Overview of Alternatives to Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD),” 2006. 4. D. J. Lando, J. P. Mitchell and T. L. Welsher, “Conductive Anodic Filaments in Reinforced Polymeric Dielectrics: Formation and Prevention,” 17th Annual Reliability Physics Symposium, April 1979.
Christina Jien is a specialist and Johnson Chang is director, engineering & RD operations at Uniplus Electronics Co. (uniplus.com.tw); This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
