Tag Archives: IPC

Ambiguity

Posted on by

P3281577 smIt’s pretty important to have unambiguous polarity markings and pin one markings printed on your PCB. In theory, for SMT parts, it really shouldn’t matter; the centroid would take care of the placement orientation. But, you may have noticed that it’s not a perfect world. It took me a while to figure that out, but I have finally concluded such.

It’s not uncommon for the CAD library part to have the wrong zero degree rotation orientation. The IPC specified location for pin one orientation Quad and BGA for square chips like QFPs, QFNs and BGAs is either the upper left or middle top. Check out our Centroid guide for more detail. If it’s wrong in CAD, the centroid will be wrong as will everything downstream. That’s why markings on the board are still important.

What do you do if your part is ambiguous though? This particular chip has three markings that could be interpreted as pin one indicators. At first glance, I’d assume it’s the dot in the center top. It would match with the text. However, there is a white dot in the lower left that could be pin one indicator which would mean, in this case, the CAD library component had the incorrect zero rotation orientation.

Datasheets aren’t always easy to find. This one is behind a registration wall. If you have a part like this, it’s really helpful if you include some documentation (in electronic form) clarifying. I found the datasheet for this particular part and was able to confirm that it is correct as placed with pin one down in the lower left (90 degrees).

Duane Benson
Via via in the board,
what’s the top on my PCB?

www.blog.screamingcircuits.com

IPC: Unconflicted about Scrap Material Disclosure

Posted on by

As detailed in IPC’s* March 2, 2011, comments in response to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed rule on Conflict Minerals, IPC has a clear, unconflicted stance on conflict minerals and disclosure requirements.

Recently the issue of whether scrap and recycled materials need to have Conflict Minerals Reports have resurfaced. And with some form of conflict minerals legislation likely to be approved by end of the third quarter this year, new seems a good time to profile IPC’s position on same.

IPC maintains that recycled or scrap sources should not be required to furnish a Conflict Minerals Report, including a certified independent private sector audit.  

IPC maintains that the SEC)final rule should include an alternative approach for recycled or scrap sources that is “practicable and does not overly burden recycled materials so as to discourage their use.”

Given other government efforts to encourage recycling in electronics and other industries it’s imperative that the SEC does not diminish these efforts by adding significant disclosure or regulatory burdens to the use of recycled or reclaimed conflict minerals, IPC said in supplemental comments in response to the SEC proposed rule on Conflict Minerals (S7-40-10) and the panel discussion held on October 18, 2011.

“An issuer using a recycled material containing conflict minerals will not be able to provide any of the details required in a Conflict Minerals Report. The traceability of the reclaimed metals is [challenging] to track due to the various forms of recycling and thousands of consolidators, reclaimers, and scrap dealers both foreign and domestic. Instead, issuers should have a reasonable basis for believing the material is recycled and maintain auditable records to support the determination. IPC believes that due diligence is the appropriate requirement for verifying recycled or reclaimed conflict minerals.

We believe recycled conflict minerals should have parity with conflict minerals originating from a conflict-free mine so as to encourage manufacturers to use recycled  and scrap materials, to reduce the demand for minerals that would support armed groups in the DRC and adjoining countries, and to maintain a fair market for metals and minerals.”

All this could be accomplished, IPC believes, by providing that — after a manufacturer conducts a reasonable inquiry into the source of its conflict minerals — no further action is required if either:

1.  the minerals were determined to originate not from the DRC or adjoining countries, or

2.  the minerals originated from a scrap or recycled source

> Read how the final conflict material disclosure law (Dodd-Frank) is expected this summer (2012).

> Read more about IPC’s position on conflict minerals online.

Early Thoughts on the Mitchell Administration

Posted on by

The hiring of John Mitchell as IPC’s new president comes as a breath of fresh air to those of us who had long tired of the antics of the previous regime.

Mitchell, the fourth person to run the 55-year-old organization, is the first with electronics industry experience, having spent a combined 16 years at Bose and Alpine Electronics.

As Bill Bader and Jim McElroy at iNEMI have proved, when it comes to running a not-for-profit volunteer organization in this industry, experience counts. The supply chain and regional differences are far too complex and the technology too intense for a greenhorn, especially one who isn’t willing to do their homework.

We envision — and hope — for a return to the days when member input is sought and valued. More than that, however, we are eager to see the occupant of that important position have a vision and tenacity that goes beyond avenging imagined personal wrongs.

Mitchell has his work cut out for himself. The industry is fractured, physically and emotionally. He will have to learn to lead without alienating, something his predecessor never accomplished. He will have to mend fences with the North American board fabricators, on whose shoulders IPC was built but were later ignored or cast out as the organization moved into the more lucrative assembly market. He will need to understand that the suppliers are generally looking to protect declining margins, and yet much of the technological know-how has migrated to that side of the industry, so he will need to convince them it is in their best interest to continue to support IPC’s technical programs, not just the exhibitions. He will need to navigate the treacherous China-US relations, in which the occasionally nasty spells of provincialism and finger-pointing from both sides mask an underlying dual-relationship that neither party can live without. He will have to right an internal culture that has grown distant from its membership. And he will have to do so while determining whether the four (!) vice presidents who applied for the job — two of whom have now been rejected multiple times — are up to the task of working with the man whom the IPC board considered a superior leader.

Based on Mitchell’s resume and conversations with IPC board members, he is the right person for the job. He is first and foremost an engineer. He has a deep business background that belies his age (he graduated college in 1991). He has worked at a high level for a major supplier of consumer electronics, giving him insight into branding and the supply chain intricacies that his predecessors either never had to deal with or were unable to master. We look forward to the next chapter in the continuing story of IPC.

Procurement Puzzles

Posted on by

While I’m pleased to see IPC is taking a stand in urging the US State Department to take a harder line when it comes to the potential export printed circuit board design data, it must have been cause for no small amount of angst in Bannockburn over whether IPC should be involved at all.

To bring readers up to speed, IPC seeks to make clear that ITAR covers PCB designs intended for defense equipment.

While it seems patently obvious that PCB data should be on the ITAR list, it puts IPC in the semi-awkward position. The largest PCB supplier to the US DoD is TTM Technologies, with about $170 million in defense sales through the first three quarters of last year. TTM’s largest shareholder is a Chinese national. And TTM’s COO is on the IPC board of directors.

So does IPC support the continued DoD drive for COTS products, keeping with the Perry Initiative of 1994, which some cite as the beginning of the end for the US PCB industry?* (COTS in effect forces prices to their lowest common denominator, which gives certain offshore suppliers a leg up on their US competitors.) Does it seek to aid the competitiveness of a major member? Or does it put the interest of the multinational members that want the lowest prices, regardless of the potential security risks? What about the potential risk to the US PCB infrastructure? Which of these priorities should take precedence?

*I don’t agree, but that’s a different blog.

Fixing the Fakes

Posted on by

The US Senate Armed Forces Subcommittee may finally be taking the counterfeit problem seriously.

The subcommittee will hold a hearing next week to share results of an investigation into the development and procurement of fake chips for military use. This is long overdue, of course. The government’s own auditors have been pointing out just how widespread the problem is. It came to a head in 2008 when technicians working on an F-15 flight computer at Robins Air Force Base discovered four replacement semiconductor chips were fake. The legal trail traced the parts to a site in Shenzhen, and US courts extracted a guilty plea from one officer at the local distributor who resold the parts. (The owner committed suicide while awaiting trial.)

That the government is at long last getting involved is a welcome, if overdue change. This is one of those areas where an effective IPC government relations team could really have an impact. Instead of tilting at accelerated depreciation windmills which are better left to the big boys, this is a nitty-gritty technical issue with chilling overtones. All the conferences around the country are nice (and make money), but the real work requires pounding the pavement in Washington.

One-Stop Shop

Posted on by

If you are looking for a snapshot of the latest (or historical) market statistics, we’ve begun compiling all the data from a host of sources in one place on the PCD&F website.

Among the data we are posting include book-to-bills and sales and orders of:

  • EDA software
  • Semiconductors
  • Passive components
  • Printed circuit boards
  • Key end-markets such as PCs, servers, mobile devices, etc.
  • Wafer utilization.

Sources include EDAC, SIA, SEMI, Gartner, IDC, IPC, ZVEI and other research firms and associations. Check it out!

One-Stop Shop

Posted on by

If you are looking for a snapshot of the latest (or historical) market statistics, we’ve begun compiling all the data from a host of sources in one place on the CIRCUITS ASSEMBLY website.

Among the data we are posting include book-to-bills and sales and orders of:

  • Semiconductors
  • Passive components
  • Printed circuit boards
  • Key end-markets such as PCs, servers, mobile devices, etc.
  • Wafer utilization.

Sources include SIA, SEMI, Gartner, IDC, IPC, ZVEI and other research firms and associations. Check it out!

Trading Places

Posted on by
I’ve spent a good part of my life watching electronic data transfer formats come and go and at the end of the day, Gerber, warts and all, has remained the one to beat. So I’m not prepared to rise up and shout to the heavens that IPC-2581, the latest iteration in 40 years’ worth of attempts at an “industry” standard, is at long last the answer.

But there are enough notable differences in the process this time around to make it newsworthy. First and foremost, there are real, live CAD tool vendors not just showing up at the meetings, but actively participating (!).

Going back to my IPC-D-350 days, Digital Equipment and the late, great Harry Parkinson were instrumental in trying to revive interest, and they had support from several smaller software folks like Dino Ditta at Router Solutions and Steve Klare at Intercept. But they never managed to break through, and a big part of the problem was the CAD vendors’ collective refusal to offer IPC-D-350 as an output (or input). The response always was, “We’ll do it if our customers ask us.” But what they were really saying was, “We don’t want to make it easy for our customers to migrate their designs to a competitor’s tools.”

In the meantime, AT&T offered up RS-274X (aka extended Gerber), which UCamco continues to support, and Valor developed ODB++, and while it is more of a machine language than a format for electronic design data, it was accepted by fabricators desperate for something, anything more intelligent than Gerber.

A new task group is attempting to update IPC-2581, recognizing that design needs will at some point “break” Gerber. Many of the players are new to the game, and a lot of the old rivalries appear to have died off due to retirements and, well, death. That’s good, because the industry needs a better standard than Gerber. It’s not something anyone ever will make any money off of, but every day we go without it, everyone will lose some.

Conflicts over Conflict Metals

Posted on by

A top Avnet sales executive is advocating a market-driven solution to the Conflict Metals problem; that is, that industry should go along with US legislation charging companies with oversight of their supply chains back to the mines.

Gerry Fay, senior vice president, supply chain solutions, Avnet, argues that the death of millions should be enough impetus for industry to comply with the Dodd-Frank bill that requires companies to trace the source of minerals used in their products. The law essentially bans the import of gold, columbite-tantalite, cassiterite and wolframite, and their derivatives, from the DRC by US-based publicly held companies, enacts strict reporting standards, and implements a new labeling procedure. Under the new law, any publicly traded company that makes products that use conflict minerals and buys those minerals either in the DRC or an adjoining country must exercise due diligence on the source and supply chain.

That prompted a reply from an IPC executive who rejects the notion that the electronics industry can resolve a “long-standing social [sic] conflict.”

Then there’s Cookson Electronics president Steve Corbett, who asserted last year that the US government should stay out of the matter because it simply has no hope of resolving a civil war in Africa.

I won’t begin to pretend I have the answer, but it’s interesting that three people so entrenched in the matter could have such differing opinions on how to (or how not to) address it.