decap:epoxy
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
decap:epoxy [2020/02/27 21:02] – [McMaster live 2019-11-10] mcmaster | decap:epoxy [2023/09/04 07:42] (current) – mcmaster | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
===== McMaster live 2019-11-10 ===== | ===== McMaster live 2019-11-10 ===== | ||
- | {{: | + | {{: |
Experiments trying to decap COB while keeping PCB intact | Experiments trying to decap COB while keeping PCB intact | ||
- | |||
Line 153: | Line 152: | ||
Above is a compromise between PP providing the best chemical resistance and silicone providing the best seal | Above is a compromise between PP providing the best chemical resistance and silicone providing the best seal | ||
- | {{: | + | {{: |
Above: hardened silicone bubbles on WFNA surface | Above: hardened silicone bubbles on WFNA surface | ||
Line 178: | Line 177: | ||
====== Laser ====== | ====== Laser ====== | ||
- | General results | + | [[decap: |
- | * Some settings work decent | + | |
- | * Possibly COB epoxy is easier to laser than package epoxy | + | |
- | * Risk of melting bond wires and/or die | + | |
- | * Use lower power and/or pulsed? | + | |
- | * Practice on samples before trying something you care about | + | |
- | * Puts off nasty fumes. Make sure to have good ventilation | + | |
- | + | ||
- | From Sam Wagner: | + | |
- | * "We use a yterrbium fiberlaser. What you are doing is trying to cause the plastic compound to explosively eject the silicon beads. So a pulsed laser is critical. | + | |
- | * " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | ===== jamiecraig ===== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | {{: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Above: laser decap from below ([[https:// | + | |
- | + | ||
- | https:// | + | |
- | * Seemed to work okay | + | |
- | * What would it look like if touched up with WFNA? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ===== EMSL 6502 test ===== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | {{:decap:epoxy: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Above: poor results. Maybe from CO2 laser (source: photo by mcmaster from EMSL test) | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ===== Silicon Exposed ===== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | {{: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Above: [[http:// | + | |
- | + | ||
- | http:// | + | |
- | * Poor results | + | |
- | * Cranberry glass | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ===== Laser Decap Pro ===== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | {{: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | https:// | + | |
- | * Gold backing block | + | |
- | * Good leadframe exposure | + | |
- | * Die unclear how well exposed | + | |
- | * Scanned entire chip (including die area) up until the end | + | |
- | * Raster scan is horizontal, vertical, and diagonal | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ===== Sesame 1000 ===== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | {{: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | {{: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | https:// | + | |
- | * Cavity into pic | + | |
- | * Gives a close up at the end | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ===== CLC ControlLaser FALIT ===== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | {{: | + | |
- | {{: | + | |
- | {{: | + | |
- | {{: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | https:// | + | |
- | * Laser Decapsulation FALIT System Software | Image Templates | + | |
- | * Pro system demo | + | |
- | * Has nice features like overlaying x-ray, CSAM, or other guiding image | + | |
- | * Laser scan was horizontal, vertical mix | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ===== Light Ray ===== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | {{: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | https:// | + | |
- | * They do the whole chip but avoid die area | + | |
- | * Light Ray - IC Decapsulation | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | ===== mcmaster ezlaze ===== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | TODO: add pictures, estimate material removal rate | + | |
- | Basically this was too slow to be practical except for very small samples. That said, it did work very well. A quicklase or other higher throughput Nd:YAG system would likely work well | ||
====== Sandblast ====== | ====== Sandblast ====== |
decap/epoxy.1582837330.txt.gz · Last modified: 2020/02/27 21:02 by mcmaster