Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1161956
SEPTEMBER 2019 I SMT007 MAGAZINE 17 Matties: Have either one of you worked with the laminate standards? Pedersen: No. Prasad: No, I have not. Matties: We were talking to a laminate vendor about this topic, and they were saying that the way the standard is being written is not practical and the approach to laminate should be changed to a functional standard rather than a compos - ite standard of materials. What's the process for creating that sort of change if it makes sense, and why hasn't it already been done? Pedersen: I understand that they are revisit- ing the standard for all this—the 4101 for base material laminate. But some of them are made because some laminate suppliers said, "I have a laminate here that doesn't fit into any of them, so let's make a new one for this." Prasad: There are numerous slash sheets in 4101 for laminate, which is the strangest of all, because anybody that has a new laminate can create a new sheet in 4101. Again, remember that there is a basic requirement that all of the sheets have to meet. Various laminate suppli- ers from different countries—such as China, Korea, Japan, or any IPC member company— test their laminates to meet basic Tg, Td, CTE, and other requirements set by IPC. When those laminates meet those requirements, they ask IPC to add their laminate to 4101 sheet. However, it is the user's responsibility to deter- mine the suitability of those laminates based on their own tests or test results from the sup- plier of that laminate. Pedersen: Correct. That's where we should come from—which laminates can be used for which environment? Matties: It seems to me that things need to be simplified, as you're saying. We need to look at standards more often and update them accord- ingly. Patty Goldman: Everybody who has a sugges- tion ought to join IPC meetings. However, and I think Ray and Jan will agree with me, it's always the ones who don't participate who have all of the complaints. Matties: And the people who are talking about it are participating, but what they're keying in on is how long it takes for change in this process. And it's all volunteers, so I understand that. Goldman: Again, it's a democracy; everybody has to agree there is a reason to change. Prasad: I would love it if I wrote something and everybody agreed, and it would get done in a month, but usually, not everyone agrees with it; that's the problem. Matties: In the meantime, if everybody doesn't agree with it, then we get stuck with what we already have, which may not be the most prac- tical or the best solution. So, how does an orga- nization come in and facilitate this? And if you have to leave it up to the users, so be it, but is there a better way? Prasad: The better way is participation and democracy because they have to meet these requirements that people have to buy into. There is a process of waiting if this goes out for ballot. So, there are people that think three years is too short, and people like me who think we can get it done in a year or a year and a half; we were able to do some standards that fast, but that's about the timeframe. Pedersen: I'm all for speeding it up, but then there are people on the other side of the table who ask, "Should I buy this standard again every year?" For me, you're going need to make IPC more dynamic and up to date. Maybe we should have a subscription instead of buying a new book every year. Prasad: The publisher of my book said IPC has this unfair advantage because they don't have to pay royalties and they get these books for free by volunteers. But IPC is able to sell these