Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1467744
72 PCB007 MAGAZINE I MAY 2022 Kelley: We're trying to get as low in loss as pos- sible before having to jump to a much more expensive type of resin system. We're pretty excited about it. We're hitting some pretty good electrical performance numbers with a material that we expect to be attractive in terms of cost. ermal reliability has been very solid from the beginning. We've just gone through our second round of CAF testing with excellent CAF resistance results. And we are currently testing it in various circuit designs to validate performance in different applications. We've locked down the formula and submit- ted it for UL certification. It's now in the stage of manufacturing repeatability validation. It will be several months before the UL certifi- cation is complete, but I expect that we'll be offering samples to cus- tomers for testing and qualification while we're waiting. ere are a cou- ple other halogen-free developments in the higher loss categories that are still attractive also. ey're much more cost sensitive, but we think they are important markets for us to be in, both by themselves and for the hybrid opportunities. Johnson: Now let's talk about an important issue in Europe, where they are pushing the idea of sustainable, green, recyclable, decom- posable materials. at's an additional set of constraints, pushing into certain sorts of mate- rials that can decompose yet be electrical per- formers. How do you get there? Kelley: at's a long haul, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be working on it. We need to be. But trying to have a reliable circuit, lead-free assembly, multiple assembly cycles, good CAF resistance with long field operation—and be decomposable? at's a big ask. Johnson: It feels like there are enough com- peting constraints to cause a disruptive shi toward a completely different set of materials. Kelley: You're right. Whether it's decomposable materials, or government regulatory bodies looking into various flame retardants, there's a lot going on. Most of our products need to meet the UL94 V-0 flammability rating. But are we, as an industry, over-specifying in cer- tain applications? As the list of requirements grows, the technical challenges increase, and oen so does the cost. As we add new require- ments, should we consider relaxing others, at least in specific applications? Consider mobile devices, where sustainabil- ity is probably the most urgent given these devices are mass pro- duced and used for a rel- atively short period of time. Maybe there are cases where you need to start relaxing some of the requirements in other areas in order to enable degradable mate- rials. In other applica- tions maybe CAF resis- tance or thermal cycling requirements have been over-specified and can be relaxed without sac- rificing reliability, making it easier to meet sus- tainability or cost goals. Johnson: It's a completely different calculus regarding the constraints. Kelley: Right, even on the flammability side, where the way the industry has been doing flammability tests, hasn't changed in probably my lifetime. For those familiar with the test, is that representative? Does it tell you what you think it does, or is there a better test that says, "Yes, I can be confident that my material won't burn in an application, while enabling more sustainable materials or processes. Maybe I can One of multiple CAF test systems.