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. hace 3 días

    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.

  2. 8 jul

    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.

  3. 15 jun

    RM 194: Why Post-Reflow Cleaning Is Becoming Mainstream Again, Part 2

    This is part two of a two-part series. In Part One, we explored how the electronics industry transitioned from a clean-everything approach to one where cleaning became optional. But what happens when the assumptions behind “no-clean” collide with modern electronics design? In this episode of Reliability Matters, Mike Konrad examines how the definition of cleanliness has fundamentally changed. As assemblies became smaller, denser, and increasingly deployed into harsh environments, the industry discovered that historical cleanliness standards were no longer sufficient to predict real-world reliability. Modern low stand-off components like QFNs, BGAs, and CSPs create tight geometries where residues can become trapped and difficult to remove, while thermal cycling and internal condensation can create localized harsh environments inside the product itself. This episode explores: • Why IPC moved away from fixed cleanliness limits • The growing importance of SIR and ROSE testing • Why “cleanliness” is now tied to risk, not a number • How internal condensation can trigger electrochemical migration • Why no-clean flux has become the most commonly cleaned flux type in the industry • The return of cleaning as a mainstream reliability process • Why modern assemblies require aggressive spray-in-air cleaning technologies instead of historical immersion-based vapor degreasing methods • How diffused spray patterns improve cleaning beneath low stand-off components Konrad also explains how modern cleaning challenges are no longer just about chemistry. They are about physics, fluid delivery, and whether the cleaning process can physically reach contamination hidden beneath today’s densely packed components. As electronics continue to shrink and reliability expectations continue to rise, one question becomes increasingly important: Clean enough for what? If you work in electronics manufacturing, reliability engineering, process engineering, or quality assurance, this episode provides a detailed look at why post-reflow cleaning has once again become a critical part of modern electronics manufacturing.

  4. 29 may

    RM 193: Why Post-Reflow Cleaning Is Becoming Mainstream Again

    For decades, cleaning circuit assemblies after soldering was not optional. It was standard practice across the electronics manufacturing industry. Then, almost overnight, that changed. In this episode of Reliability Matters, Mike Konrad takes you back to the origins of that shift. From the widespread use of CFC-based cleaning solvents to the global impact of the Montreal Protocol, this episode explains how environmental regulation led to the rapid adoption of no-clean flux and the removal of cleaning as a standard process step. But that decision came with assumptions. Assumptions based on larger components, wider spacing, and assemblies that were far more tolerant of residues than what we see today. As electronics evolved, so did the risk. Miniaturization, increased component density, and the expansion of electronics into harsh environments have dramatically reduced the tolerance for contamination. And when cleaning was removed, it wasn’t just flux that remained. It was the totality of residues introduced throughout the manufacturing process. This episode walks through how those residues, combined with moisture and electrical bias, can lead to electrochemical migration, including parasitic leakage and dendritic growth, often resulting in delayed or intermittent failures. This is the story of how we got here. In Part 2, we bring this discussion into the present. What does “clean” actually mean today? Why did the industry move away from fixed cleanliness limits? And why is cleaning once again becoming a critical part of modern electronics manufacturing? If you’ve ever asked the question, “Do I really need to clean?” Part 2 will challenge how you think about the answer.

Acerca de

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)

También te podría interesar