(not available)

(not available)

(not available)

(not available)

(not available)

Embedding capacitive layers inside the Printed Circuit Board (PCB) have demonstrated the ability to reduce the number of
Surface Mount Technology (SMT) chip decoupling capacitors on the PCB surface as well as greatly improve the
performance of the power distribution system. Many systems today utilize this technology,but most public information is
limited to data on test vehicles or emulators. This paper utilizes simulated as well as measured product data to compare the
performance of the standard design to one using various types of Buried Capacitance™ layers with a reduced number of
SMT decoupling capacitors. A methodology is provided that can be utilized for other designs.

(not available)

Many large Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) have a detailed procedure and a significant capital investment in
place for the selection of printed circuit board suppliers. This approval process typically involves one or more site audits
(which,as we know,now involves a significant amount of overseas travel) and non-destructive and destructive qualification
testing by a third party laboratory.
This is all well and good if your company has what seems like unlimited funding to carry out this process,but where does
this leave the small OEM? This paper is intended to assist smaller OEM’s get the most for their money and purchase a
quality product. I was recently in a meeting with a new IPC member who was also new to the electronics industry,and he
made the following statement regarding qualifying their suppliers,“We go to the PCB supplier’s facility for a tour,they take
us to lunch,and they are approved.” He also asked in this same meeting,where in IPC can I go for help to better understand
what I should do,and we did not have a good answer to his question.
Within the past year and a half a blue ribbon committee has been started to assess the feasibility of IPC having a printed
circuit board (PCB) Qualified Suppliers List similar to that of the military for MIL-PRF-31032,MIL-PRF-55110,and MILP-
50884. This will most likely take a few years before we see this listing on IPC’s website. This paper will provide some
basic guidelines in assessing your supplier’s board at a cost that is reasonable to your company.

Recent global environmental regulations affecting consumer electronics and electrical equipment,such as the European Union’s RoHS Directive,China ‘RoHS’ and others,have driven electronics manufacturers to identify the presence and concentration of regulated hazardous substances in their supply chain. These efforts have generally included a close examination of the product supply chain to the homogeneous material level. While the majority of investigatory efforts have relied on supply-chain self-reporting of materials composition,actual materials testing can be of benefit in those instances when supply-chain information is lacking or suspect or if verification testing of final products is desired. While a variety of internationally recognized test methodologies exist there are clear benefits and drawbacks regarding the analytical options available. This paper details the comparison of non-destructive and destructive test methods for the analysis of various plastics and polymers used in electronics. A common non-destructive testing option is x-ray fluorescence (XRF) technology. This approach,while relatively inexpensive and fast,has the added benefit of mirroring the screening testing which regulatory authorities are most likely to use. Destructive testing of materials,on the other hand,provides a more definitive approach. A detailed comparison of the results obtained from testing materials by both technologies is discussed. While clear benefits can be seen from the data presented,it is important to understand the good laboratory practices such as test equipment calibration,duplicate analysis and method blank determination that can greatly impact the results obtained. A thorough analysis of all of this data,not merely the results obtained,is essential in the critical evaluation of the materials tested.

(not available)