Indium Corporation®

Indium Corporation Blogs

  • People
    • Technical Support Engineers
    • Sales
    • Human Resources
      • Jobs
      • Community Support
    • Marketing Communications
      • Trade Shows
      • Company News
      • Corporate Awards
      • Technical Milestones
      • Social Media
    • Employee Biographies
    • Corporate
      • About Us
      • Social Responsibility
      • Company News
      • Corporate Awards
      • ISO and ITAR
      • Trade Shows
      • Corporate Literature
    • Bloggers
    • Social Media
    • Facilities
    • Contact Us
  • Products
    • Flux and Epoxy
      • Ball-Attach Flux
      • Epoxy Flux
      • Flip-Chip Flux
      • Flux Pens
      • Flux-Cored Wire
      • Industrial Flux
      • Liquid Tabbing Flux
      • Package-on-Package Flux
      • Tacky Flux
      • TCB and Copper PIllar Flux
      • Wave Flux
      • Wafer Bumping Flux
    • Inorganic Compounds
      • Featured Products
      • Indium Compounds
      • Gallium Compounds
      • Germanium Compounds
    • Metals
      • Indium
      • Gallium
      • Tin
      • Germanium
      • Reclaim and Recycle
    • NanoFoil®
      • Sheets
      • Preforms
      • Powders and Particles
      • Sputtering Target Bonding
    • Reclaim and Recycle
      • Solder and Solder Dross Recycle Program
    • Solar Assembly Materials
      • Metallization Paste
      • SUNTAB™ PV Ribbon
      • Liquid Tabbing Flux
      • Solders
    • Solder Paste and Powders
      • SACM™
      • Indium8.9 Series
      • Lead-Free
      • Tin-Lead
      • Package-on-Package Paste
      • Low Temp/High Temp
      • Die-Attach
      • Wafer Bumping Paste
      • Solder Fortification®
      • Gold-Based Solder Paste
    • Solders
      • Bismuth Solders
      • Gold Solders
      • Indium Solders
      • Bar Solder
      • Low Temp/High Temp
      • Preforms
      • Ribbon and Foil
      • Solder Fortification®
      • Spheres
      • Tape and Reel Packaging
      • Solder Paste and Powders
      • Wire
      • Alloy Chart
    • Thermal Interface Materials
      • Heat-Spring®
      • NanoFoil®
      • Preforms
      • Ribbon and Foil
      • Other
      • Solder TIM
    • Thin-Film Materials
      • Featured Products
      • Sputtering Targets
      • Indium
      • Gallium
      • Others
  • Applications
    • Compounds
      • Batteries
      • Catalysts
      • Fiber Optics
      • LED MOCVD Precursors
      • Optical Lens
      • Reclaim and Recovery
    • Engineered Solder and Alloys
      • Connector Assembly
      • Cryogenic Seals
      • Die-Attach
      • Hermetic Sealing and Pass Throughs
      • IGBT
      • Medical Devices and Electronics
      • Thermal Management
    • LED
    • Low Temperature Alloys
    • Medical Devices and Electronics
    • PCB Assembly
      • Package-on-Package
      • Rework and Touch-Up
      • Solder Fortification®
      • Surface Mount
      • Thermal Management
      • Wave Solder
    • Semiconductor and Advanced Assembly
      • 2.5 and 3D Packages
      • Ball-Attach
      • Die-Attach
      • Flip-Chip
      • Package-on-Package
      • Pb-Free Including High Temperature Pb-Free
      • Shock Resistance Solutions
      • SnPb Including High Temperature High Pb
    • Thermal Management
      • Burn-in and Test
      • Concentrated Photovoltaic
      • IGBT
      • RF Power Devices
      • TIM1, TIM1.5, TIM2
    • Thin-Film
      • Thermal Evaporation
      • Plating
      • PV Sputtering Targets
      • Target Bonding
      • PVD Coating Materials
  • Contact Us

Home Page

Return to Blog Summary Page ↑

Special Cause and Common Cause Variation and Knob Twiddling: continued

Posted by Dr. Ron Lasky on Monday, November 26, 2012

Folks,

Let’s see how Pete is handling the wave solder crisis.

Pete had to admit that he was surprised by the positive outcome of his meeting with Fred Castle.  He had sent Patty a text the day before, after he took the operators to lunch, before meeting Fred.  The text was a little negative.  So he was eager to send her the good news about the surprises in his two meetings with Fred since then.  He was frustrated that he kept on getting her voice mail.  Finally she answered.

“Advanced Processes,” Patty speaking.

“Hey, kiddo, it’s your favorite process genius!” Pete responded cheerfully.

“Oh, this must be Oscar Patterson!” Patty joked, and they both laughed. Patterson was an annoying chap they had to deal with a few years ago.  He topped their list of most annoying people. Pete had almost come to fisticuffs with him.

“How is it going there?” Patty asked.

“Shockingly well. My meetings with Fred Castle were very productive” Pete answered.

“Well, that is shockingly positive news. But I thought he said, ‘I’ve forgotten more about wave soldering than you’ll ever know,’” Patty responded.

“That’s the first thing he said to me when we shook hands, but he was clearly teasing.  He slapped me on the back at the same time and chuckled. He went on to say that he had worked in wave soldering for over 30 years, typically at companies that had processes that were out of control.  It was clear that he understood a lot about wave.  We talked for 30 minutes about what makes a good wave process. As far as I could tell he was right on in everything he said.  I think the operators didn’t pick up on his teasing, by the way,” Pete elaborated.

“What about special cause vs common cause?” Patty queried.

“He didn’t have a clue,” Pete replied.

Patty was bracing herself.  She was concerned that Pete might have insulted Castle.

“And you didn’t tell him he was an idiot?’ Patty teased.

“Patricia! I’m shocked you could even think such a thought,” Pete replied.

Pete went on, “We bonded, and he admitted that he was frustrated with the yield loss increasing.  He was studying the situation and spending a lot of time trying to figure out the issues.  He said he was having trouble sleeping.  He mentioned that, in his last job, he was responsible for the wave processes at 10 locations.  He was constantly fighting fires and got good at it.  He had never worked at company that performed DOEs and developed optimized processes.”

“I’m dying to know how this situation worked out,” she interrupted.

“Patience, patience,” Pete admonished jokingly. He continued, ”It was clear that Fred likes to learn, so  I mentioned that, recently, The Professor had mentioned the importance of understanding the differences between common cause and special cause variation when trouble shooting a process.  I suggested that maybe studying these topics might help. So I gave him a few links to The Professor’s posts on common cause and special cause.” (Dr. Ron note, it will be helpful understanding this story to read The Professor's post, if you are not familiar with common cause and special cause fails.)

“What happened then?” Patty asked, the impatience in her voice apparent.

“Remember, this is now the end of my first day. I watched the process in the morning, took Molly and Chuck to lunch, and then met with Fred.  On the second day I had a morning meeting with the quality director, Pam. Then Castle and I went to lunch,” Pete elaborated.

“And?” Patty asked impatiently.

“Castle was all excited.  After studying common cause and special cause all night, he realized that he was seeing common cause fails in his detailed scrutiny of the wave line. By adjusting the process parameters slightly when he found a common cause fail, he was moving away from the optimized process settings that were determined by a DOE, so the failure rate got worse.  In his previous job, he was mostly seeing special cause fails, as the processes were not optimized, so he was used to intervening,” Pete explained.

“It seems like he won’t have enough to do now,” Patty commented.

“I suggested he help quality.  They are stretched thin and he is a detailed-oriented fellow.  He keeps meticulous Pareto charts of the fails,” Pete said.

So, where are things now?’ Patty asked.

“Yesterday and today, first pass yields are at 96%.  Fred also started helping quality today. It felt good to help and not offend,” Pete finished.

Patty thanked Pete for the great job he did and complimented him strongly for being successful and making friends at the same time.  As she hung up the phone, she saw an email from Pam Olinski in her in box.  It was a kind note thanking her and Pete for his help.  It recounted much of what Pete had said.

She wistfully looked out her window.  She was happy and grateful for all of her success, but, to be truthful, she missed the action of being out on the shop floor solving these types for problems.

She was jolted from her chair when she suddenly remembered it was her turn to take her twin sons to karate lessons.  So she packed up quickly to pick them up at her mother-in-law's, to get them to the gym by 5PM.

Cheers,

Dr. Ron

image

Leave a Comment »

Happy Birthday Hieronymus Theodor Richter: co-discoverer of indium metal

Posted by Rick Short on Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Today we celebrate the birthday of the co-discoverer of indium, Hieronymus Theodor Richter.

 

Hieronymus Theodor Richter (pictured left) (21 November 1824 – 25 September 1898) was a German chemist who was born in Dresden. He co-discovered indium in 1863 with Ferdinand Reich while working at the Freiberg University of Mining and Technology. In 1875, he became the director of the school. He was born 21 November 1824 in Dresden and died 25 September 1898 in Freiberg, Saxony at the age of 73.

 

 

Ferdinand Reich, (pictured right) German mineralogist and chemist (19 February 1799 – 27 April 1882), co-discovered indium in 1863 with Hieronymus Theodor Richter. Reich, who was born at Bernburg in Germany, studied at the University of Göttingen and taught at the Freiberg Mining Academy.

 

 

In 1863, when indium was discovered, Ferdinand Reich was 64 years old. His assistant, Hieronymus Theodor Richter, was 39. Imagine that scene! Reich had obtained a yellow precipitate from some local zinc ores while he was checking sphalerite, a sulphide ore of zinc, with a spectrograph looking for thallium (which was discovered in 1861). Reich asked his assistant, Richter, to examine it spectroscopically (Reich was color blind, or could only see in whites and blacks. For this reason he needed Richter to examine the colors produced in reactions that they studied). Richter observed a bright blue stripe, unknown in any other spectrum, and distinct from the blue stripe of cesium. To this new element was given the name "indium", because of the bright indigo blue spectral stripe.

Reich and Richter ended up isolating the indium, creating a small supply.

At the 1867 World Fair an ingot of 0.5 kg (1.1 lb) was presented.

It wasn’t until 1924 to 1933, when Daniel Gray (Utica, NY), while working under the direction of William Murray, created a process to extract and refine indium, that the commercial possibilities began to be explored. Dr. William S. Murray, the founder of Indium Corporation, received the first patent to process indium in 1926. The first commercial quantities of indium were discovered in Kingman, AZ in the same year.

Their work led to the founding of The Indium Corporation in 1934.

Today indium is used in a variety of applications: as a low melting solder in electronics applications, as a transparent, conductive coating (ITO) for touch screens, LCDs, and solar panels, and as well as a thermal interface in many of our electronics devices – to name a few.

Info sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indium,

http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=In

Leave a Comment »

Special Cause and Common Cause Variation and Knob Twiddling

Posted by Dr. Ron Lasky on Monday, November 12, 2012

Folks,

It's been a while. Let's look in on Patty......

Patty stared, bleary eyed, at her laptop screen.  It was the day after the election.  She and Rob were following the election closely as a “statistical thinking” exercise.  They had met at a conference with The Professor in late October and agreed that following the election would test their statistical thinking skills.  They established beforehand that they would not discuss who they favored, just the data.

All agreed that Mitt Romney had a greater challenge than President Obama.

As Rob said, “Of the six most populated states, even the Republicans agree that Obama will win California (1), New York (3), Illinois (5), and Pennsylvania (6).  Romney is only a shoe-in for Texas (2).  Only Florida (4) is a toss up”

“I thought some analysts were saying that Pennsylvania is in play,” The Professor commented.

“They’re dreaming,” Patty said with conviction.  “Pennsylvania has too many big cities; typical democratic strong holds,” she continued.

“Many pollsters have 255 electoral votes in Obama’s column and only a little over 200 for Romney. It’s hard to see a Romney path to victory.  It is statistically unlikely he could win all of the swing states” Rob added.

The Professor beamed as he listened to his protégés' intelligently analyze and argue the situation.

They all agreed that it was hard to understand why many were referring to it as a close race, although voter turnout could change everything.

As election night went on, Patty felt she could call the election at 8PM EST.  However, she was sympathetic that the networks needed a high level of certainty. The major networks were finally calling it at 10PM.  When they did, Romney was ahead in the popular vote by about 1 million.  Patty chuckled to herself, when a renowned TV anchor commented that it might be a governing challenge to Obama to win the electoral college and not the popular vote.  Clearly he had not factored in the fact that, although California was “called” for Obama around 10PM EST, it was called with only a few percent of the votes in.  The networks were using exit polls and statistical analysis to make a projection.  By the time all of the west coast votes were counted, Obama will comfortably win the popular vote - because of California’s large population.  Patty thought this should be obvious to the pundits.

Patty had stayed up until about 11PM to watch the results.  It was comforting that her analysis was spot on.  However, she was so “wound up” that she couldn’t fall asleep and she was now paying the price.

As her attention shifted back to the email she was writing.

Suddenly, she was jarred by a loud, cheerful voice.

“Hey kiddo, pack your bags, looks like we’re on the road again,” Pete said loudly.

As usual Patty thought,” How does Pete always know these things before I do…..I’m the boss!”

“What’s the scoop?” Patty asked.

“Remember our facility in Ohio?  They are having wave soldering yield and throughput problems,” Pete answered.

“What!” Patty shouted.  “We spent a lot of time there six months ago optimizing their wave soldering operation and teaching them the appropriate use of solder preforms. What happened?” She finished.

“Not sure,” Pete responded. “I thought we worked really well with their team and developed a good process.  It seemed to me it was one of the more productive projects I was involved in in quite awhile,” Pete finished.

“And you didn’t even offend any of the senior managers,” Patty teased.

Pete chuckled but his cheeks did turn a little red.  Pete was a terrific process engineer, but he had a little bit of a “short fuse,” although he was usually right.

“In talking to some of my buddies there, they told me that senior management hired a very senior fellow who is considered an expert in wave.  Strangely, things fell apart right after he joined,” Pete explained.

“Well, you are on your own for this one.  I've got a number of family commitments over the next two weeks,” Patty said with a little sadness in her voice.  Patty enjoyed these types of challenges.

“As soon as I get the official request, you’ll be on your way,” Patty said.

“Oh, and don’t offend anyone,” she teasingly finished.

As Pete left her office, she checked her emails. Sure enough, there was a note from Mike Madigan asking her to intervene in this wave soldering problem.

Two days later Pete was in ACME’s Ohio facility sitting in the office of Pam Olinski, the site's quality manager.

“Pete, I’m so glad you could come.  Three months ago our wave soldering first pass yield was 95% and our production was about 2,000 boards per day.  Yield is now 90% and production is off 15%. “Help!” Pam said.

“Tell me about the new guy?” Pete asked.

“Fred Castle; he has very impressive credentials, but he has been running the wave process like a dictator. He stops the process a lot to adjust the wave machine.  I think he will be offended that you are here to audit the process,” Pam finished.

Because of this concern, they agreed that it might be best to have Pete initially view the process from afar.  So, they decided that Pete would be given an operator’s smock and walk around the shop floor for half a day or so.

As Pete arrived on the shop floor, almost immediately he saw Fred stop the wave machine and make some adjustments.  While  making the adjustments, Fred held a board in his hand - and he looked at occasionally.  After the wave machine was running again, Pete saw that Fred looked carefully at every board.

Pete saw one of the wave operators was going on a break.  Pete remembered Molly Stark from his visit to optimize the wave process six months ago, so he stopped her and ask if she could join in for lunch.

The morning passed quickly, and Pete was off to lunch with Molly.  As Pete had suggested, Molly brought another operator, Chuck Petrus to lunch.  Pete insisted on treating, so Molly and Chuck left their brown bags behind. 

In total, Fred stopped the line four times during the almost 4 hours of Pete's observations. Each time he made adjustments on the wave machine. After exchanging pleasantries Pete asked, “Why was that fellow stopping the wave line so often?”

Molly got quite animated and answered, “That’s Fred Castle, the supposed wave genius. He stops the line every time there is a defect and adjusts the wave machine parameters.  A number of us complained to him that he shouldn’t make adjustments on the machine that with just one fail.  That’s what you taught us.”

“What did he say?” Pete asked.

“ ‘I’ve forgotten more about wave soldering than you will ever know’……No one has said a word since,” Chuck responded.

“You and Patty taught us about special cause and common cause variation. I don’t think Fred understands that,” Molly commented.

“He’s also a knob twiddler,” Chuck added.

Does Fred know the difference between common and special cause variation?  Is that the root of the yield and throughput problems? 

What is a knob twiddler? Stay tuned to find out.

 

Cheers,

Dr. Ron

Leave a Comment »

Thermal Activation of NanoFoil®

Posted by Jim Hisert on Monday, November 12, 2012

Don’t throw away that solder iron yet! There are many ways to activate NanoFoil® with heat. All that’s needed to start the reaction is to heat the foil to ~200°C at a rate of 4°C/s. Here are some techniques that have been used before:

  • Electrically heating: use the foil as a resistance heating element
  • Soldering iron: simple and effective, you probably have one of these on hand
  • Induction: very quick and can activate NanoFoil® buried between other parts
  • Micro torch / flame: easily automated, no electricity needed

Any one of these methods will activate NanoFoil®, but your best bet is to contact Indium Corporation’s Technical Engineers to help find the best solution for your application!

 

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »

Electrical Activation of NanoFoil®

Posted by Jim Hisert on Friday, November 9, 2012

If you have ever witnessed one of our NanoFoil® demonstrations at a tradeshow, you may remember we used a 9-volt battery to activate the material. Yes, it can be that simple – especially for parts less than 15cm in bond diameter or bond length.

For large area bonds, it is recommended to use multiple ignition points to coordinate the reaction. We bond many large area assemblies at Indium Corporation, and our go-to tool for activation is the MPIS (Multi-Point Ignition System). This system can monitor and apply voltage to 16 points simultaneously. Depending on application, we use a number of channels to ensure the NanoFoil® is activated in at least 15cm intervals. This coordination of activation points controls the wave of reaction, causing the waves to meet – which reduces voiding and solder splash. More about the reaction can be found here.

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »

The NanoBond® Reaction

Posted by Jim Hisert on Thursday, November 8, 2012

One of the key points to understanding a NanoBond® application is understanding the reaction that takes place. When NanoFoil® is activated, the nickel and aluminum bilayers (picture on left) start a self-sustaining reaction that quickly consumes the material.

After the reaction takes place, the aluminum and nickel layers form a brittle intermetallic (picture on right). This bi-product, nickel aluminide, shrinks and cracks allowing solder to flow between and complete the interconnection.

Through a series of posts, we will discuss:

  • Wave Propagation
  • Heat Penetration
  • Heat Dissipation

I know this doesn’t cover everything you’d ever want to know about the reaction of NanoFoil®, but that’s what we are here for! Let us know if you have a question.

 

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »

How to Solder a Wire to a Pad

Posted by Paul Socha on Friday, November 2, 2012

It seems like a fairly simple thing to do.  What could be difficult about soldering a wire to a pad? 

Well, I hear three common complaints and expressions of frustration:

POSITIONING: Typically, in this process, a soldering iron is used. The first problem arises from trying to hold onto the soldering iron AND the wire to be joined to the prefluxed pad AND the solid-core solder wire you are using.  An extra hand would be nice! Some people use a system of fixtures or clips to hold the wire and the pad in the appropriate position. (see image and link, below)*.

COLD SOLDER JOINT: Another common complaint is that, after soldering, the wire easily pulls out of the solder joint.  This is due to the poor wetting of the solder to the wire and the pad - it never really "soldered".  A solution that I share is to pretin both the pad and the wire with the solder, using a flux.  To pretin the wire, I suggest melting some of the solder in a crucible or solder pot.  Dip the wire in the flux and then into the molten solder.  A teardrop should form on the end of the wire.  It can also be pretinned using the soldering iron. Next, pretin the pad. Both pretinned surfaces will have a coating of post-reflow flux residue.  If required, this residue can easily be removed using a suitable solvent.  Now that you have pretinned both surfaces, the pad should be heated with the soldering iron and, when the proper temperature is reached, the pretinned wire should be pressed to the pretinned pad.  The solder on both the pad and the wire will melt together and, when the heat is removed, the joint will be formed.  Usually this can be accomplished without adding additional flux.

INCONSISTENT VOLUME: A third issue is that the volume of solder in the joint is not uniform from piece to piece. If this is your concern, consider using a flux-coated solder preform. They can be produced with the exact solder volume, and the precise dimensions to fit onto the wire you are joining to the pad.  Similar to the process described above, when the pad and the wire are heated, the flux will be activated (removing the oxides) and the solder preform will melt, forming a consistent and perfect solder joint.

Please contact our technical support group with any questions you may have.  We are always ready to help you solve your soldering problem, whether it is large or small.

For more background, read these blog posts on hand soldering:

  • soldering iron tip temperature
  • hand soldering flux selection
  • hand soldering tech support
  • the importance of a clean soldering iron tip

 

Paul Socha

 

*Image: Harbor Freight sells a product called "Helping Hands" for (US) $6.99, as of this writing. Other companies offer similar products. Consider buying more clamps to hold the wire in place, freeing you to hold only the solder wire and the soldering iron.

Leave a Comment »

Choosing the Best Metallization for your NanoBond® Application

Posted by Jim Hisert on Monday, October 29, 2012

Since the NanoBond® process is almost instantaneous, fluxes are not used. (They just don’t have enough time to heat up to their activation temperature and remove oxides.)

So, because this is a fluxless soldering application, surface choice and preparation become very important. We no longer have the chemical power of a flux to break down surface oxides, instead we must make sure our surfaces are ready to be joined.

The first choice to make is: will you have solder on the parts to be bonded, or will you use solder-coated NanoFoil®?

If you decide to use bare NanoFoil®, the parts must have a solder finish such as pure indium, SAC 305, or tin. If you choose to use a solder-coated NanoFoil®, you can bond gold and silver metallized parts.

 

Need help figuring out what to do? Ask us: AskUs@indium.com

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »

Solder Preforms Deliver Uniformity of Solder Volume in a Joint

Posted by Paul Socha on Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Attaining consistent and accurate solder (and flux) volume uniformity in hand soldering has long been a critical quality and performance issue.  Traditional hand soldering creates consistency and quality issues from operator to operator, from shift to shift, from day to day, and even within the same operator within the same day!

Hand soldering always delivers inconsistent solder volume.The human factor is a major contributor to this non-uniformity.

Solder preforms:

  • offer a solution to the need for consistent solder volume.
  • are the preferred solution in tens of thousands of applications where the uniformity of solder volume is critical.
  • provide the correct alloy, the right size, and the exact volume of solder that you require.
  • are available in custom sizes, shapes, volumes, and packaging, to suit your production needs.
  • can be flux coated with a consistent and precise volume, and type, of flux. Flux-coated solder preforms reduce process time by eliminating a separate flux application step. They can also reduce total flux usage.
  • can be ganged together (InTEGRATED® Solder Preforms) for mass placement. I blog about that here and here.
  • can be manufactured using a fugitive dye (in the flux coating) imparting a visible color for easy identification. This helps distinguish visibly-similar but different (alloy, dimensions, etc.) solder preforms.
  • can be clad to a dissimilar metal, providing extra strength and/or the ability to bridge gaps.

 

Using,  applying, positioning, and reflowing solder preforms (and flux) is simple. Simply place the solder preform at the joint site (by hand or robotically), and apply heat.  It’s really that simple.  Each joint will have precisely the same solder volume regardless of who is doing the soldering.

Manage your 1st-pass yields, your quality, your field failure rates, your customer satisfaction, and your profitability by putting solder preforms to work for you.

Paul Socha

23 October 2012

Leave a Comment »

Shear Testing a NanoBond®

Posted by Jim Hisert on Wednesday, October 17, 2012

In an earlier post I mentioned that cross-sectioning a NanoBond® was one of my favorite tests. My other favorite test is shear testing.

It’s great to see what is going on in the bondline of a solder interface – but having a numerical value to compare the bond strength is important when you are attempting to maximize bond strength.

For small components, shear testing may be manageable "as is" (such as the component in the image shown here, courtesy XYZTEC). For larger bonded surfaces like sputtering targets, it might be a good idea to cut up your backing plates and target material so you can use less material and create more bond variations. Instead of one large target, I’d much rather have 20 samples to bond with various foil thicknesses, solder coatings, and bonding pressures.

 

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »

NanoBond® Setup

Posted by Jim Hisert on Monday, October 15, 2012

Assuming that your application follows the DFNB (design for NanoBond®) guidelines, you are ready to prepare your parts/components for assembly. Whether you are bonding LEDs, sputtering targets, heatsinks, or any other components – there are a few common points to consider before activating the foil and creating a bond:

  • Surface Preparation
  • NanoFoil® Thickness
  • NanoFoil® X and Y Dimensions
  • Aligning the Assembly
  • Pressure During the NanoBond® Process

 

Setup for the NanoBond® process can be as simple as clamping two plated parts together - with NanoFoil® in between, or an elaborate setup including a multi-point ignition system and a high capacity press. Generally, the smaller applications (electronic component scale) are fairly simple to set up. For anyone who has seen a NanoFoil® demo at a tradeshow or visit, you will remember that the NanoBond® was created using only finger pressure and a 9 volt battery – that’s simpler than hand soldering! (and faster too…)

 

Ready for activation?

 

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »

Pressure During the NanoBond® Process

Posted by Jim Hisert on Thursday, October 11, 2012

During a NanoBond® reaction, assembly pressure may determine if you create a quality solder joint. There are many details that can influence how much pressure is actually needed:

 

  • NanoFoil® thickness
  • Solder type/oxidation/thickness
  • Surface roughness
  • Part flatness

     

 

In practice, we use anywhere from a few psi (like the clips shown above) ...

 

... up to 400-500psi (with a press, as shown below) – depending on the criteria listed above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The main thing to keep in mind is that you want uniform pressure across your interface.

As illustrated in the pressure paper images below, uniform pressure across a NanoBond® interface is critical for maximum bond strength.

We will discuss this further in "Aligning the Assembly".

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »

First Visible Light LED Turns 50!

Posted by Carol Gowans on Tuesday, October 9, 2012

It is hard to believe, but 50 years ago, on October 9th, the first visible light LED was demonstrated by Nick Holonyak, Jr. of GE Advanced Semiconductor Laboratory in Syracuse, NY (just down the road from Indium Corporation's global headquarters).  Fortunately, he did not listen to his critics who said mixing gallium arsenide and gallium phosphide would not work to make a visible light LED, because they were wrong!

According to Roberto Baldwin at www.wired.com, Holonyak predicted that LEDs would one day replace the incandescent light.  Today there are many efforts underway to make that happen.

Today, Indium Corporation is involved in several LED applications:

1) NanoFoil®:   High brightness LEDs use NanoFoil® to bond thermal pads to heat-sinking substrates.  By using the NanoFoil®, the standard reflow process (that can negatively impact brightness, color, and life time) is avoided.

2) Gallium Trichloride: This is used as the starting material for making gallium-based metal organic precursors, such as tri-methyl gallium, which are used in the LED industry.

3) Indium Trichloride Also used as a starting material, but for indium-based metal organic precursors such as tri-methyl indium.  These compounds are also used in the manufacture of LED lighting as well as batteries and other applications.

4) Engineered Solder Materials: Attaching an LED to a substrate can also be done by using a variety of specialty solders, including bismuth-based (low temperature) solder preforms or solder pastes.  We also have a variety of thermal solutions that can help dissipate the heat generated by the LED.  Flux-coated solder preforms provide solder and flux in a consistent volume, for use under larger LEDs to reduce or eliminate voiding. 

It may have taken 50 years to see the widespread adoption of this technology, but there is no doubt that it is here to stay!

Contact us for more information or visit www.indium.com and see our new web site.

cgowans@indium .com

Carol Gowans

Leave a Comment »

Cross Sectioning a NanoBond®

Posted by Jim Hisert on Tuesday, October 9, 2012

One of my favorite methods of examining a solder bond is cross sectioning. This may not give you a view over the entire area of the bondline, or give you an actual value you can use to determine if the bond is mechanically strong enough, but it does let you study any possible metallurgical issues visually.

This is what you can expect to see when you look at a sectioned NanoBond® for a thermal interface application:

  1. Your parts on the top and bottom (In the picture, this would be the silicon die and a copper heatsink
  2. Reacted NanoFoil® throughout the middle of the NanoBond®
  3. Solder encapsulating the NanoFoil® between your parts (pure indium solder in this case)

Other applications will look fairly similar, generally containing solder, NanoFoil®, and whatever parts are bonded.

If you have any questions about a NanoBond® cross section, send a picture to our engineers to confirm what you are seeing.

 

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series.

Leave a Comment »

Flat Surfaces for the NanoBond® Soldering Process

Posted by Jim Hisert on Friday, October 5, 2012

As mentioned in a separate post, uniform pressure across a NanoBond® interface is critical for maximum solder bond strength. Uniform pressure is much easier to achieve with flat, coplanar bonding surfaces.

If you are in the design stage of your NanoFoil® application, now is the time to make sure that the parts you will be bonding are flat – so you can apply even pressure to the entire bondline. This may necessitate machining, or otherwise conditioning, the parts so they are flat, smooth, and clean.

The obvious question I would assume you will ask is, “How flat should these surfaces be?” For target bonding and other large area bonding applications, we use this general rule: ≤1mm/m. For thinner parts, the pressure during assembly may help compensate for surface variations.

As far as the surface roughness, parts definitely don’t need to be polished – I’ve even used coarse-grit emery paper to flatten surfaces before bonding. Remember though, it’s recommended you clean your surfaces with isopropyl alcohol to remove oils and debris after any sanding/grinding operation.

 

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »

Preparing Surfaces for a NanoBond®

Posted by Jim Hisert on Monday, October 1, 2012

The first time I was taught how to solder (as a child), I was told: “All the surfaces need to be mechanically cleaned and chemically cleaned.” The person who told me this was referring to pipes, I was learning about plumbing. (I would have never thought we'd be using nanotechnology to create solder joints!) Although your application is probably far from a plumbing job, the basics of soldering remain the same. The best solder bonds are formed when oxides and contaminants are not present.

These two points are taken care of in traditional electronics soldering by using a flux. Flux can flush away light contaminants like dust, and reduce oxides on certain metal surfaces. But, in the NanoBond® process, we aren’t using flux.

Luckily, NanoFoil® can power through the soldering process as long as the proper surface finishes are used, and they are ready to be soldered to. Different surfaces are prepared in different ways. Here is a list of some common surface finishes and what preparation they require:

  • Gold – Wipe with isopropyl alcohol if aged
  • Silver – Wipe with isopropyl alcohol if aged
  • Tin – Remove oxides with 10% HCl if aged
  • Solder coating - Remove oxides with 10% HCl if aged
  • Aluminum – Add solder coating
  • Molybdenum – Add solder coating
  • Titanium – Add solder coating
  • Naval Brass – Add solder coating

And for any surface you don’t see, feel free to contact askus@indium.com so we can find a solution for you.

 

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »

Design Considerations for the NanoBond® Process

Posted by Jim Hisert on Monday, September 24, 2012

NanoBond Process Set Up ClampThe first step of the NanoBond® process should usually happen long before the NanoFoil® arrives at your facility. DFM (design for manufacturing) is an important concept, in this situation I use the acronym DFNB (design for NanoBond®). Although there are applications that you can use NanoFoil® as a ‘drop-in’ solution for, you can run a much easier, more efficient, and economical process by setting it up for success in the design phase. Keep these questions in mind:

  • How will you activate the foil?
  • Do you have the proper surface metallizations?
  • Where is the solder in this solder bond?
  • Are your surfaces flat enough to be bonded?
  • How will you apply pressure?

Once you have completed DFNB you are ready to bring the NanoFoil® in house and setup your NanoBond® Process.

 

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »

Ball-Attach Flux WS-446-NRD for Poor Quality OSP-wetting

Posted by Dr. Andy Mackie on Friday, September 21, 2012

While on a recent trip to Malaysia, I interviewed two colleagues regarding trends in semiconductor assembly. My previously-published interview with Sze-Pei Lim appears here.

This time, while on a visit to a logic device manufacturer in the North West, I [ACM] talked briefly to Sehar Samiappan [SS], Indium Corporation's Area Technical Manager, about our recently-developed water-soluble pin-transfer Ball-Attach Flux, WS446-NRD, which is designed for BGA applications of 0.5mm pitch, and greater than 1500  I/Os.

[ACM] What is the origin of WS446-NRD?

[SS] The development was driven by a customer need for a guaranteed good quality BGA (ball-grid array) solder joint, but with reduced environmental impact. Our very quality-focused customer uses several different suppliers of organic FC-BGA substrates with copper OSP pads. The customer had serious concerns about occasional poor solderability of SAC305 solder spheres onto substrates. The key defect seen was poor wetting onto the OSP-coated copper pad, which would give rise to variability in both joint strength and bump coplanarity,  and even (in worse cases) missing-ball / “big ball” effects. Some of the pad finishes were seen to be highly oxidized, severely restricting solder wetting during reflow. Variability in the surface finish was found to be not just from supplier to supplier, but also showed up as lot-to-lot variability from lower cost suppliers.

Some of the differences seen could be attributed to the method of mask desmear from the C4 “cage” of the flip-chip (top side) area, which was either a plasma-based desmear or an oxidizing inorganic acid dip, that was clearly having effects on solderability of the opposite (bottom) BGA side of the substrate.

[ACM] What steps have customers previously taken to get around this issue?

[SS] This is a serious issue for many ball-attach flux users, and some customers have gone to the lengths of using a special fluxing step to remove contaminants such as oxide and OSP (organic solderability protectant) coatings. These liquid fluxes are very reactive, but require  separate spraying, reflow, and cleaning stages that add cost and time. The halogenated ball-attach fluxes of the WS446 series have an established good chemistry that allows wetting of SAC105, 305, and 405 onto a variety of metallizations. In the semiconductor assembly industry, the WS446 fluxes are well-known in Taiwan, and throughout South East Asia, for their good solderability and long pot-life in a variety of FC-BGA applications.

[ACM] What was different about WS446-NRD, and why was it developed?

[SS] WS446 fluxes are all colored, using a bright red dye, so the flux can be seen by eye and automatically detected by vision systems. Red coloration also allows automated ball-attach flux dipping replenishment systems to detect flux levels. Normally, colored fluxes are not a problem, but the customer had some environmental concerns with the red color contaminating the water-wash equipment, and building up in their water-recycling system. WS446-NRD was developed from the basic WS446 flux series chemistry, but  without the red dye. The solderability performance of WS446-NRD was excellent, eliminating the variations in OSP solderability without requiring any additional processing steps. WS446-NRD also passed internal process and product requirements, such as cleanability, and the customer was very pleased with Indium’s ability to rapidly tailor a chemistry to their specific requirements.

[ACM] Sehar: thank you. I look forward to sharing a durian with you again when they are back in season.

Leave a Comment »

Adding Solder to a NanoBond® Assembly

Posted by Jim Hisert on Thursday, September 20, 2012

One of the biggest misconceptions about NanoFoil® is that it is a form of solder. While it may contain a solder coating if specified (usually tin), it is really a heat source. A NanoBond® requires solder, whether it comes from a plating on the joining surfaces, additional solder preforms, or on the NanoFoil® itself.

Surface Coating

There are many ways to deposit solderable coatings onto parts that will be NanoBonded. Sputtering, thermal evaporation, thermal spray, plating, and HASL (hot air solder leveling) are just a few of the options. Coating the parts that will later be bonded tends to make assembly a bit easier.

Solder Preforms

If the parts have a gold or silver surface finish already, a thin solder preform is a very simple way to apply solder in the assembly. Preforms are sold as custom-shaped foil for your application.

NanoFoil® Coating

Although Sn is the most popular solder coating for NanoFoil®, it has been custom plated for individual customer applications with indium, traditional solder alloys, and even Au/Sn.

By the way, make sure there is solder on both sides of the NanoFoil®. I almost overlooked this very point today while I was bonding a set of industrial batteries. There was solder on the battery terminal, and I was about to use bare NanoFoil® to bond it to a gold plated board. Luckily we had some tin plated NanoFoil® that I used instead – to ensure there was sufficient solder on the board side of the interface.

 

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »

Ultrasonic Testing a NanoBond® Solder Bond

Posted by Jim Hisert on Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Ultrasonic Testing (UT), performed by acoustic microscopy, is a great way to determine the quality of a solder bond without destroying the assembly.

As a very basic description, SAM (scanning acoustic microscopy) uses sound waves to travel through the assembly, much like some animals use sonar to locate objects. Sound waves generated by a transducer travel through the assembly and bounce back when they encounter different materials. Air reflects back much differently than metal, so, by using sound waves, we can locate pockets of air (voids).

In a NanoBond® you can expect to see 2 things:

1) darker spots where the NanoFoil® is located in the bond and

2) very little voiding, which will appear as white areas. Here is an example of voiding:

 

Most of the time we see little or no voiding. We typically achieve <2% when we bond sputtering targets with NanoFoil® in-house. Here is an example:

 

If you have experience with traditional large area soldering methods, you will notice that <2% voiding is a sign of a very good bond.

For sputtering targets this is necessary to reduce pump-down times and eliminate ‘virtual leaks’. Contact us if you are interested in learning more.

*This post is part of the NanoBond® Process series

Leave a Comment »
<< Previous Page Next Page >>

From One Engineer to Another®

Indium Corporation — ©1996–2013. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Compendium

Subscribe

Feed

Email

Translations

  • German
  • Spanish
  • French
  • Korean
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)

Categories

  • Alloys Solder
  • Antimony Solder
  • AuSn
  • B2B Marcom
  • Ball Attach
  • Bar Flux
  • Bar Solder
  • Bar Wave
  • BGA
  • BGA Process
  • Bismuth
  • Bismuth Alloys
  • Bismuth Tin Alloy
  • Bonding Ribbon
  • BtoB Marcom
  • Burn In
  • Bus Ribbon
  • Chip Attach
  • CIG
  • Clad Preforms
  • Connected Preform
  • Copper Indium Gallium
  • Cored Solder
  • Cored Solder Wire
  • Cored Wire Solder
  • Die Attach
  • Dipping Flux
  • Dipping Paste
  • Epoxy Flux
  • Flux
  • Flux Cleaning
  • Flux Cored Solder
  • Flux in Soldering
  • Flux Pen
  • Fusible Alloy
  • Gallium Alloy
  • Gold Indium
  • Gold Tin
  • Graping
  • Halogen Free
  • Hand Soldering
  • Head In Pillow
  • Heat Spring
  • Hermetic Sealing
  • Indalloy
  • Indium
  • Indium Alloy
  • INDIUM CORPORATION
  • Indium Tin Oxide
  • Indium Wire
  • Intermetallic
  • Lead Free Assembly
  • Lead Free Paste
  • Lead Free Profile
  • Lead Free Silver Solder
  • Lead Free Solder Flux
  • Lead Free Solder Paste
  • Lead Free Solder Temperature
  • Lead Free Soldering
  • Lead Free Wave Soldering
  • Leadfree Solder
  • Led Solder
  • Liquid Flux
  • Low Alpha
  • Marketing Communications
  • Metallization Paste
  • NanoBond
  • NanoFoil
  • Nanotechnology
  • No Clean Flux
  • No Clean Solder
  • No Clean Solder Paste
  • No Lead Solder
  • Package On Package
  • Paste Flux
  • Paste Soldering
  • Pb Free
  • PB Free Solder
  • Phase Change Material
  • Pin Transfer
  • Pop Flux
  • Pop Solder Paste
  • Preform Manufacturer
  • Preform Price
  • Reflow Solder
  • Rework
  • Rework Flux
  • Ribbon Solder
  • RMA Flux
  • RoHS
  • SAC Solder
  • SAC305
  • SAC305 Solder
  • SACX0307
  • Semiconductor Packaging
  • Silver Lead Free Solder
  • Silver Solder Paste
  • Silver Tin Alloy
  • SMT Solder
  • SMT Solder Paste
  • SOLAR
  • Solder
  • Solder Alloy
  • Solder and Flux
  • Solder Bar
  • Solder Basics
  • Solder Bumping
  • Solder Cream
  • Solder Defect
  • Solder Evaluation
  • Solder Joints
  • Solder Melting
  • Solder Metal
  • Solder Paste
  • Solder Paste Reflow
  • Solder Paste Syringe
  • Solder Preform
  • Solder Price
  • Solder Process
  • Solder Quality
  • Solder Reliability
  • Solder Sphere
  • Solder Stencil
  • Solder Suppliers
  • Solder Tin Lead
  • Solder Wires
  • Solder With Flux
  • Solderability
  • Soldering Assembly
  • Soldering Flux Paste
  • Soldering Fluxes
  • Soldering Lead Free Solder
  • Soldering Materials
  • Soldering Paste
  • Soldering Products
  • Spin Coating
  • Sputtering Target
  • Tabbing Ribbon
  • Tape And Reel
  • Thermal Interface Material
  • Thermal Management
  • Thin Film Technology
  • Tin and Lead Alloy
  • Tin Antimony Solder
  • Tin Gold Solder
  • Tin Lead Alloy
  • Tin Lead Phase Diagram
  • Tin Silver Solder
  • Tombstoning
  • Wave Solder
« View All Categories »

Recent Entries

The Perfect Sputtering Target Bond
by Jim Hisert on May 23
Bonded Sputtering Targets are a Bi-Metallic Assembly
by Jim Hisert on May 21
NanoBond® is a Fluxless Process
by Jim Hisert on May 16
The Right Climate Stuff Research Team Hits the Mark
by Dr. Ron Lasky on May 14
High Temperature (Braze Alloy) Sputtering Target Bonding, with NanoFoil®
by Jim Hisert on May 14
Material Safety Data Sheets
Product Data Sheets
ISO and ITAR
Online Store
Tech Team

Connect with Indium

  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Blogger

+ Read our latest posts!

Americas

Utica, Chicago, Clinton
E-Mail: askus@indium.com
Phone: +1 315 853 4900

Asia/Pacific

Singapore, Cheongju
E-Mail: asiapac@indium.com
Phone: +65 6268 8678

China (中国网站)

Suzhou, Shenzhen, Liuzhou
E-Mail: china@indium.com
Phone: +86 (0)512 628 34900

Europe

Milton Keynes, Torino
E-Mail: europe@indium.com
Phone: +44 (0)1908 580400

Regional/Local Sales Support
Technical Service & Support

  • Home
  • Online Store
  • ISO and ITAR
  • Corporate
  • Tech Documents
  • MSDS
  • About Us
  • Jobs