FYI,

Take a look at the April 2002 issue of Printed Circuit Design Magazine.... 
It's  focus this month is on
Panelization as a means to High-Volume Manufacturing...

Sam Cox.






At 01:36 PM 4/12/2002 -0300, you wrote:
>Thanks to all who helped with this thread. I'm reviewing them and haven't
>made a decision yet...
>
>Tim Fifield
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Reagan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:49 AM
>To: Protel EDA Forum
>Subject: Re: [PEDA] PCB Panelization
>
>
>Thank you Dennis S  for the pitch
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dennis Saputelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Protel EDA Forum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 9:05 PM
>Subject: Re: [PEDA] PCB Panelization
>
>
> >
> > this has been kicked around a lot and i do not at all dispute what you
> > have said here
> >
> > nevertheless, we frequently seem to have requirements that the bd house
> > could not appreciate
> >
> > e.g., sometimes a part hangs significantly  over a board edge (the
> > features of which may not be apparent to a board house) and a clever
> > arrangement of the panel can allow the part to hang into the right
> > adjacent area of an adjacent bd thus saving hand solder steps
> >
> > sometimes wastage of material is more than offset by assembly savings
> > due the arrangement of the boards and the dimensions of throw away rails
> > vs. what they offer
> >
> > clearly, however, the pitfalls of doing it yourself are real
> >
> > i think the best compromise on this topic that i have seen is mike
> > reagan's:
> >
> > draw all the details of the panel, breakaways and such and then include
> > only one instance of the bd and explain what it is that you want
> > this more or less allows you to have your cake and eat it too
> > no DRC issues, no objects missed in copy and paste (got burned on that
> > once), time offloaded to the board house
> >
> > (this method however doesn't address the best utilization of their raw
> > material size and tank sizes)
> >
> > in general i don't think there is a hard cost for the fab shop's
> > panelization efforts (since they do it anyway), it is more or less
> > overhead depending on your relationship and size of order, etc.
> > so having said that i agree that their time is 'free' and may save in
> > other ways also
> >
> > BTW,
> > over the years (and even lately) having dealt with maybe 40 or more
> > board shops i have seen more than once the following amusing relevant
> > quotation quirk:
> > i panelize several different boards, sometimes just dumb shear aparts
> > (we have a shear), the appearance is one board, one rectangle
> >
> > the shops calls and says "i see you have several part numbers here" (by
> > looking at the nomenclature on the board)
> > then they try to angle for more money ...
> > it's as if they feel burned for the setups they didn't get
> > guess who i don't call back
> >
> > another one
> > we make a nice multi-up panel of say 6 of the same bd, maybe rails
> > around the perimeter and tab routing and all kinds of crap that unify it
> > into a single deliverable 'thing'
> >
> > the bd is to be delivered as presented, i.e., we break it apart AFTER
> > assembly so from our viewpoint it is ONE bd
> > what follows all too often is endless confusion over how many bds we
> > want, they often want to count the individual ones to get the price up
> > i ordered 24 pcs, i got 4 bds
> > i have taken to the rather lengthy:
> >
> > '4 pcs ea of 'our panel' (their panel is different!, got burned on that
> > too) which consists of 6 bds per each of 'our panel'
> > after a few phone calls about how many that really means that usually
> > does the trick
> >
> > Dennis Saputelli
> >
> > Andrew Jenkins wrote:
> > >
> > > On 04:04 PM 4/11/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >Tim,
> > > >In my opinion, I would not do the panelization in any of them. I let
>the Fab
> > > >house do ... it.
> > >
> > > I agree. I recently ran the numbers on a small board from several PCB
>shops, both pre-panelized and by allowing them to handle the optimization.
>In no uncertain terms, each of the hosues told me that had I chosen to do
>the panelization myself, it would have probably cost me more, due to their
>knowledge of the "stock" board sizes that they use to create the customer
>ouput, versus my own ignorance of each of their individual stock sizes and
>equipment, etc... (And there would have been more effort on my part...more
>cost..serious cost (manhours)...and more of an opportunity to fudge
>something while panelizing...more potential for increased cost...)
> > >
> > > Unless you're talking from the perspective of a board house, ie, by "we
>are performing our first panelization" means that you're the service, not
>the servicee, then I have to wonder why you're taking this on, aside from a
>potential academic interest in accomplishing the task, that is.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > aj
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
>___________________________________________________________________________
> > www.integratedcontrolsinc.com            Integrated Controls, Inc.
> >    tel: 415-647-0480                        2851 21st Street
> >       fax: 415-647-3003                        San Francisco, CA 94110
> >

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to