The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: email@example.com (Robin)
Subject: Re: 1523 joints
Date: 23 Oct 2002 01:22:46 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Oct 2002 08:22:46 GMT
"Christopher R. Carlen" wrote in message news:<3DB5C12B.firstname.lastname@example.org>...
> Hi folks:
> I have a design in the works, and it looks like it will involve two PCBs
> with a total of 1523 solder joints per assy. I will likely need to
> produce between 4-10 of these over the next few months.
> The objectional quantity of solder joints is making me consider having
> them manufactured by a local custom electronics assembly shop.
> But I dread the thought of something going wrong, and having to waste
> time figuring out what went wrong, and straightening it out with the
> possible cost of wasting my PCBs or having to salvage them. Plus, the
> time to document the assembly procedure and kit all the parts probably
> will equal at least one or two assembly times.
I come from the other side i.e. techy-fault-finder, production
assembler, take the money and run contractor consequently "my type"
tend to see "troublesome" projects i.e. have *not* been
designed-to-be-manufactured and/or designed-to-be-tested.
As the chap above says, use 0.9 mm holes (never smaller - my
auto-insertion production experience is well out of date but they used
to prefer larger sizes) try removing a DIL package from 0.7 mm holes!
Bust-a-gut to ensure that the design is testable. Otherwise "techies"
will circumvent your altruistic-but-awkard scheme for some easy short
cuts making the project vulnerable to work-to-rule.
If it is easiest to build your product correctly and easiest to test
it correctly then the manufacturers will love it (was it not the case
that the Ford Edsel was a bastard to put together and consequently it
was routinely sabotaged in production).
Better designs *start* with the mechanics, the case, build-ease,
re-workability and testing because these things add fixed cost to
every unit made for ever. The problem is that these savings never show
in the "accounts". All that shows is a heavier but one-off design
If you could have a day on a production line, just one day
(incognito), it would be well worth it.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup