PCB Chat

PCEA

Recorded conversations and interviews on electronics design and manufacturing with the editors of PCD&F/Circuits Assembly, brought to you by the Printed Circuit Engineering Association (PCEA)

  1. 2d ago

    RM 199: Good Adhesive, Bad Bond: The Hidden Causes of Adhesion Failure

    Adhesive failures can be frustrating because the problem isn’t always obvious. The adhesive may have been properly selected, the part may look clean, and the process may seem under control. But weeks or months later, a coating lifts, an encapsulant separates, or a bond fails in the field. So what went wrong? In this episode of Reliability Matters Mike Konrad is joined by David Dworak, material scientist at Dymax, to discuss the science behind reliable adhesion in electronics manufacturing. They talk about why adhesive bonding is about much more than choosing the right material. Dworak explains the role of adhesive chemistry, surface energy, wetting, contact angle measurement, surface preparation, plasma treatment, and why even a visually clean surface may not be ready for bonding. Also explored: how manufacturers can troubleshoot adhesion failures, control their bonding process, and gather objective evidence that a surface is truly ready for adhesive application. If your process involves conformal coatings, encapsulants, underfills, component bonding, or any adhesive used in electronics assembly, this conversation will help you better understand what really makes a bond reliable. “The Principals of Adhesion: Understanding Adhesive Chemistry, Application and Surface Science for Optimal Bonding Performance.” https://circuitsassembly.com/ca/editorial/menu-features/43078-the-principals-of-adhesion-understanding-adhesive-chemistry-application-and-surface-science-for-optimal-bonding-performance.html

  2. Jul 23

    RM 198: Sean Patterson on Making Al Useful in Manufacturing

    Artificial intelligence is everywhere right now. It’s in the headlines, it’s being built into software tools, and it’s showing up in more and more conversations about engineering, manufacturing, quality, and process improvement. But here’s the problem. A company can buy the software. A team can attend the training. Everyone can walk away impressed by what AI might be able to do. And then, a few weeks later, very little actually changes. The tool is still there. The potential is still there. But the habits never formed. And that matters directly to reliability. In electronics manufacturing, reliability doesn’t come from good intentions. It comes from repeatable processes, disciplined execution, clear documentation, good decision-making, and the ability to recognize problems before they become failures in the field. That’s where AI can become more than just another interesting tool. Used properly, AI may be able to enhance workflows such as: • Reviewing ECOs and identifying downstream process, documentation, material, or inspection impacts • Analyzing AOI, SPI, test, and process data to detect recurring defect patterns • Supporting root cause analysis by organizing failure data, inspection results, and corrective action history • Monitoring process drift in areas such as reflow, cleaning, stencil printing, placement, and environmental conditions • Assisting with corrective action reports, customer responses, and internal documentation • Capturing tribal knowledge from meetings, shift reports, troubleshooting notes, and past problem-solving activity Those are all reliability-related activities. They touch the way products are designed, built, inspected, documented, corrected, and improved.  But AI only helps if it becomes part of the way work actually gets done. Mike Konrad's guest is Sean Patterson, author of the article, “Why Your AI Training Isn’t Sticking.”  Patterson argues that AI adoption is not really a training problem. It’s a habit problem. In other words, the goal isn’t simply to teach people what AI can do.  The goal is to connect AI to the work people are already doing, such as preparing for meetings, reviewing engineering change orders, working through technical questions, or organizing complex problems. For those of us focused on reliability, that distinction is important. AI doesn’t replace engineering judgment, process knowledge, or verification.  But when used properly, it may help strengthen the behaviors that support reliability: asking better questions, capturing knowledge, reducing overlooked details, and improving the consistency of technical decision-making. Here, Sean talks about why AI training often fails to stick, how small triggers can turn occasional use into practical habits, where AI can fit into engineering and manufacturing workflows, and how companies can approach AI in a way that is useful, responsible, and directly connected to reliability.

  3. Jul 8

    RM 197: Closing the Gap Between Validation and Reality

    What if passing the test is not enough? In reliability engineering, we often place a great deal of confidence in laboratory validation. We test, measure, analyze, and document. And when the product passes, we naturally assume it is ready for the field. But what happens when a product passes the lab test and still fails in the hands of the customer? Today, we are going to explore the gap between laboratory reliability testing and actual field performance.  It is a gap that can be costly, frustrating, and sometimes difficult to explain.  Products can perform well under controlled test conditions, yet still experience unexpected failures when exposed to real users, real environments, real service conditions, and real-world variability.   Mike Konrad's guest is Dr. Nishith Kumar Reddy Gorla of CORE ITS LLC. Dr. Gorla’s work focuses on system-level reliability testing, field reliability alignment, reliability growth, and test-to-field correlation for complex products. His recent paper, “System-Level Test Case Design for Field Reliability Alignment in Complex Products,” looks at why traditional reliability test methods may miss important field failure modes. More importantly, it proposes a broader approach to test case design that considers not just the product design, but also actual use conditions, field failure data, end-user behavior, service procedures, manufacturing variation, consumables, and product interfaces. This is an important conversation because reliability is not simply about passing a test. It is about understanding how a product behaves in the real world, where variables interact, users behave unpredictably, environments change, and failure mechanisms may not appear until the system is challenged in realistic ways. If you design, build, test, specify, or depend on complex products, this discussion should be especially relevant.  Today, we will talk about why products sometimes pass in the lab but fail in the field, how better system-level test cases can improve field correlation, and what reliability professionals can do to create test methods that more accurately reflect real-world performance.

About

Recorded conversations and interviews on electronics design and manufacturing with the editors of PCD&F/Circuits Assembly, brought to you by the Printed Circuit Engineering Association (PCEA)

You Might Also Like