caLogo

How will the pandemic play out in the PCB world?

Here we are, nine months into 2020, with little insight as to how the rest of the year will turn out for printed circuit fabricators. When was the last time that occurred? Perhaps more than a decade ago? The 5G implementation drove revenue gains at the best-performing PCB fabricators last year and are providing a foundation for 2020 as well. Automotive, on the other hand, is sputtering, as car sales have crashed with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Who could have seen any of this when the book closed on 2019?

Six months of effort resulted in this latest NT-100 report, now in its 25th annual edition. As mentioned many times, each year it gets harder to compile the list, thanks to many new entries from growing Chinese fabricators, only one-quarter of which are publicly traded and publish annual reports (not always in time for the purpose of this report). The data from most unlisted Chinese fabricators are extracted from the “Top 100 Fabricators” published by CPCA. Unfortunately, valuable as it is, the CPCA list has some flaws in that it misses some important fabricators, and some entries are by factory, not company. Nevertheless, without the CPCA data, the NTI-100 would not be possible. TPCA data are valuable but include only stock-listed fabricators. Therefore, this author contacted those fabricators not publicly listed. They gracefully provided their sales revenues. Likewise, only AT&S and Schweizer Electronics publish annual reports. Other European entries, including KSG, Somacis and Würth Elektronik, provided the author their revenues. Southeast Asia fabricators were likewise cooperative. The author expresses gratitude to all who provided the valuable data.

Still, many entries are estimates, particularly those operations that are part of large corporations. Usually, they do not break out their PCB revenues. The author made educated guesses in these cases. Some errors, big or small, do exist. The author is solely responsible for any errors. He hopes PCB manufacturers can compare where they stand among competitors, and equipment and materials fabricators can see where to “attack.” In summary, readers are cautioned the rankings are a reasonably accurate portrayal of the largest PCB fabricators, but do not assume total accuracy.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

Read more ...

Despite competing goals of price and reliability, the technology requirements for most products are similar.

Read more ...

The reality of a brittle supply chain could mean harsh consequences for failure to deliver.

A field programmable gate array (FPGA) is an integrated circuit configurable by customers in the field, making such devices desirable for space and defense applications. A fortified version, known as a Radiation Hardened (RadHard) FPGA, can withstand attacks from electromagnetic and particle radiation in outer space.

Columns, rather than solder balls, are a critical subcomponent in the final assembly of FPGA packages. A sudden shortage of mission-critical FPGA devices could result in warfighters not flying and rockets not launching. This is not an exaggeration. But how could this be? Quite simply, makers of ruggedized FPGA devices depend on a single subcontractor to provide services to attach copper-wrapped solder columns.

Past production shortages in the semiconductor industry have been short-lived because multiple vendors have been able to quickly step in to fill voids in the supply chain. Today, only a single subcontractor is designated on the Qualified Manufacturer List (QML-38535) as a provider of copper-wrapped solder column attachment services for the entire FPGA industry. Any supply chain dependent on a single supplier is inherently vulnerable. Action is needed to develop a solution to resolve this vulnerability.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

Read more ...

A cross-functional team approach for completing prototypes and ramping to production.

Faster, better, cheaper has always been a mantra in electronics manufacturing services (EMS) because leveraging the benefits of companies selling manufacturing expertise and infrastructure has been the primary motivation behind the growth of outsourcing. Improvements in computing technology, networking infrastructure and systems interconnection now give EMS teams unprecedented real-time visibility into the product realization process. But like the guy who buys a Porsche and drives mainly on city streets, these systems are rarely tested to their full potential. Firstronic’s new product introduction (NPI) team recently needed to break that paradigm when the Covid-19 pandemic drove a new customer to request a product ramp at high speed when other supply chain options were unexpectedly shut down.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

Read more ...

Does a small node suggest anomalies – and potential failure?

Read more ...

Lights-out manufacturing mandates a standard communication protocol.

Electronics assemblers often assume an MES solution is all they need to gain complete control of all processes and traceability for SMT, manual assembly, box build, test, and rework processes. But even if an MES solution provides interfaces to a wide range of equipment, the plant needs to purchase interface options for the equipment. Often, the investment is so large, they choose not to do it. A vendor’s proprietary interface to control and collect data from their machine in real-time can cost up to $5,000/machine. For a plant with 50 machines that need such interfaces, that is a significant investment that often exceeds the cost of the entire MES solution.

For companies that develop and sell MES, developing proprietary machine interfaces is a major resource, cost and time expense. Doing so involves constant updates and attempts to work with companies that often perceive MES vendors as competitors and are not willing to share interface information and data. Electronics manufacturers evaluate machines more and more on the type of communication interface they provide and their additional cost, and often buy machines from vendors that do not charge extra for communication interfaces. A standard interface always has been needed. Attempts to create one failed because of shortsighted interests of equipment vendors and a misunderstanding of the benefits to be gained from a standard interface.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

Read more ...

Page 26 of 83

Don't have an account yet? Register Now!

Sign in to your account