|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Sean As I commented at wechat, I think FFC vendor may lack of copper foil thickness than Herose's recommendation. Copper foil thickness was thiner 13um than Herose's recommendation. Could you request why vendor reduce copper foil thickness? I think that point(Copper foil thickness) is the best important point. Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie At this time, I can only provide Chinese version of e-mail. Vendor P-TWO reply that adhesive with tolerances, and 65um copper film is their popular material. So their mark 0.12t in the FFC cable drawing. |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie I translate e-mail from Chinese version to English version as below. As talked via phone. All materials have tolerances. The FFC connector recommandation is 70 (copper film)+24 (adhesive)+12 (base material)+24 (adhesive), and P-two FFC cable is 65 (copper film) +20 (adhesive)+12 (base material)+20 (adhesive). Adhesive has tolerances, so we mark 0.12t on the FFC cable drawing. The difference between 0.07mm copper foil and 0.065 mm copper foil is only 0.005mm. The customer thinks that the piercing is unreasonable because of the insufficient thickness of the copper foil ! The report of our company has explained it in great detail. It is recommended that your company (Fii) and your customer (ALT) wait for HRS to provide their FA report before discussing more practically. You can provide our company's FFC to them (HRS) for verification~ This copper foil is currently commonly used by our company, and other copper foils have not been imported and used, thank you ! |
|
|
Hi, Tom I give 2 feedback. 1)Regarding your explain of "This copper foil is currently commonly used by our company, and other copper foils have not been imported and used", that is cable vendor's viewpoint. As you can see Hirose's datasheet, they recommend Copper film with TIN not Mylar film. So, I want to know their tensile strength(Copper film with TIN vs Mylar film). 2) About "The difference between 0.07mm copper foil and 0.065 mm copper foil is only 0.005mm", can they verify there is same strength? As we know 0.005mm is very small, but that is 8% of overall thickness(0.07%). Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Attached are the HIROSE's analysis report for you reference. HIROSE has two suggestions 1. The returned FFC's GND plate thickness is only 43-44um. It's too thin compare to HRS's suggestion(70um). => Vendor P-TWO is checking solution now. 2. In addition, prevent applying additional downward force on FFC when inserting/assembling => Fii's ME RD will notice in the assemble SOP and inform production line this issue. Thanks ! |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Attached is the vendor P-TWO provided kapton tape's datasheet for you reference. Thanks ~ |
|
|
Hi, TOm Please refer to below link for Kapton tape's requirement. https://mantis.cnsbg.foxconn.com/vaas/view.php?id=1392 Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Attached is the P-TWO provided reliability test report for current MP FFC cable. Please help confirm whether it is ok for the two kinds of FFC cable. Thanks ! |
|
|
Hi, Tom Please proceed both of solution #1 and #2. Please use real used connector(using FFC connecotr at SWAN) Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Update kapton datasheet, add tensile strength specification in page2. Thanks ! |
|
|
Hi, Tom Tensile strength is too weak. Please use over 33(3M or Kapton's tape). Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Considering test fee issue for step 2. HALT test (SET level). Could you agree only test "Vibration step stress test" and "combined environment stress test" ? Thanks ! |
|
|
Hi, Tom Why do you test only Vibration stress test? Please explain your opinion. Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Tom 9.8N/cm is equal to 0.867lbs/inch. As I commented, please use over 33lbs/inch strength tape. Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
N/cm^2i, Tom It's mis-calculated conversion. 9.8N/cm^2 is equal to 14.5lbs/square inch. As I commented, please use over 33lbs/inch strength tape. Please use minimum 20N/cm^2 one. Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie reply 0001417: 0009545 Cold and hot temperature step stress test is basically to verify the operating limits of electronic parts. We have verified it before, so we recommend no need to retest. So, we suggest only need to test "Vibration step stress test" and "combined environment stress test" . Thanks ! |
|
|
Hi, Tom I considered long time using consider. Could you confirm it can garantee using 5 years? If you garantee 5 years, you can test only vibration. Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Below are HALT test items : 1. Cold temperature step stress test <Tom> This test verify the operating limits of electronic parts. item 5 (Combined environment stress test) has included this test, so we recommend no need to retest. 2. Hot temperature step stress test <Tom> This test verify the operating limits of electronic parts. item 5 (Combined environment stress test) has included this test, so we recommend no need to retest. 3. Rapid thermal transitions stress test <Tom> This test verify the operating limits of electronic parts. item 5 (Combined environment stress test) has included this test, so we recommend no need to retest. 4. Vibration step stress test <Tom> Fii recommend test this item for new FFC cable. 5. Combined environment stress test <Tom> Fii recommend test this item for new FFC cable. Thanks ! |
|
|
Hi, Tom Okay, We agreed your proposal. Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Vendor provide a new kapton which tensile strength can > 90N/25mm. Please help to review it. Thanks ! |
|
|
Hi, Tom Is this real value? I have question about it. 1. Unit is different. - MXPI-310: 9.8(N/cm^2) - MXPI-310F: 90(N/25mm) 1) Why didnot use "^2" at MXPI-310F? 2) If calculate "^2", MXPI-310F is 90/16(N/cm^2), so it is little than MXPI-310. 3) Document No.(Inside no.) is same. Is it real different tape? I worried vendor can apply real over 30(lbs/inch^2) one. Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Update the unit of tensile strength of MXPI-310F. (N/25mm -> N/cm^2). Attached are the datasheet and test report for you reference. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi, Tom I cann't believe vendor's datasheet because vendor easily change spec.. But, if you confirm their quality, it can use belive conditionally. " FFC short issue can cause field return, Foxconn vouch and responsible of this issue" Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie I double confirm with KAPTON vendor, the denominator of 25mm (N/25mm) is to use a 25mm width KAPTON for the tensile force test, and the denominator of cm^2 (N/cm^2) is to use a 8mm diameter cylinder for the puncture force test. MXPI-310F can indeed pass 90N/25mm test. Attached is the revise version of test report which add test unit of X-axial and Y-axial. Please review and confirm it. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Following the test report, the new capton (MXPI-310F) can indeed pass 90N/cm^2 test. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi, Tom Vendor's test spec. is not correct for tensile strength. ASTM D3330 and GB2792 is for "Test standard method for Peel adhension of Pressure-sensitive tape". Tensile strength id refer from ASTM D3579 Test standard. As I commented, we cannot belive vendor's data. How Foxconn can give me a confidence? Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie KAPTON vendor provide a revise version of MXPI-310F datasheet which midified test standard (ASTM D3330 -> GBT30776-2014) of tensile strength. Attached are the datasheet and Chinese version of test report. Vendor will provide English version of test report soon. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi, Tom GBT30776 is the Chinese specification. So, I cannot get and review that. Could you provide that specification? Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Attached are the English version of test report and standard GBT30776-2014. Vendor only can provide Chinese version of standard GBT30776-2014 and will provide revise version of datasheet later. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Update MXPI-310F datasheet which revise the unit of tensile strength. Attached is the datasheet for you reference. Thanks ~ Tom |
|
|
Hi, Tom I reviewed ISO 30776 international spec. and there is no concern. Please proceed next step. Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie OK, I will ask FFC cable vendor P-TWO to prepare samples. Thanks ~ Tom |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie FFC cable vendor P-TWO reply that current design with kapton mylar, total thickness 557um over FFC connector specification (500+-50um). So vendor P-TWO suggest to decrease the thickness of "insulated layer+adhesive" ( 60um -> 37um) and "stiffner+adhesive" (225um -> 205um), as show in attached picture. Can you accept this design change ? Thanks ! Tom FFC cable_current design vs add kaptonpng.png (196,149 bytes) |
|
|
FFC cable_current design vs add kaptonpng_0408.png (201,545 bytes) |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie I update a good new to you. Vendor P-TWO reply that the stiffner can maintain the original thickness. So only the thickness of the insulated layer needs to be thinned. Please help to confirm it. Thanks ~ Tom |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie reply 0009848 Can you agree that thinning insulated layer of the FFC cable ? If thinning the insulated layer of the FFC cable is acceptable, vendor P-TWO can start to preparation materials. So, PLS kindly review it and feedback to me soon. Thanks ~ Tom |
|
|
Hi Tom Lee, We are not expert on it. So we cannot decide what kinds of issue may caused by this change. As per discussion on weekly meeting, we can accept when your test result has no issue, such as 1. Please provide your HALT Test report 2. We asked you to provide test report whether Kepton tape has holes after HALT test. If there is any issue on your test, then we can accept it. So we don't care how new sample tickness is increase or decrease if new FFC cable has no issue before. Best Regards, suhYoung YOON |
|
|
Hi Tom I found the I2C is not working AMP FFC cable applied Kepton tape. this STB is returned from end user. I think, this is review again for the short term solution is valid or not. ----------------- Symptom : No audio : Replace the AMP FFC cable -> audio is woking. S/N 2149695001202109003652 A8934AFE8A12 KakaoTalk_20220429_105056732.jpg (260,601 bytes) KakaoTalk_20220429_105056732_01.jpg (250,958 bytes) KakaoTalk_20220429_105056732_02.jpg (189,215 bytes) |
|
|
Hi, SH Fii HWQA has start test step 1 on 5/24, and will test step 2 on 6/13. Do the FFC cable samples of step 2 which use the samples used of step 1 or use new FFC cable samples ? Thanks ~ Tom Acceleration test.png (40,395 bytes) |
|
|
Hi, Tom You shall use same sample(used of step1) at Setp1 and Step2. Do not use new sample. Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Attached are the report of "Press 1N to FFC connector top" for you reference. Thanks ! |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Attached is the test report of "Step 2. HALT test" for you reference. Please kindly review the test reports of "Press 1N to FFC connector top" and "Step 2. HALT test" and give me review result. If no problem, I will inform vendor P-TWO to quotation for new FFC cable. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi Mr. Tom Lee, We asked to take photos of Kepton tape after HALT Test before. We need to check whether kepton tape in FFC Cable is defected or not. Could you check it and provide it ? Best Regards, SuhYoung YOON |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Yoon Attached are the FFC cable pictures of HALT sample for you reference. I will update it on HALT test report tomorrow. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi, Yoon I update the pictures of FFC cable body as attached. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi, Yoon Update the HALT test report which add FFC cables photo in page 8. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi, Tom We confirmed your test result. Please go next step. Best regards Lonnie Kim |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Got It ! I will work with MFG PM to arrange the control run schedule and then inform you. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi, Lonnie Attached are the new FFC cable control run report, the FATP test yield rate was 100%. Please kindly help review and feedback comments. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi Tom Thank you for update control run result. We are agree the new ffc cable + P/N : 376.00039.005, 183005-15089 AX3. Please let us know the cut in information (first applied serial number of new FFC cable) and action item. 1. check the q'ty of product without short term solution 2. provide new FFC cable P/N : 376.00039.005, 183005-15089 AX3 for replace - More than 50% of FFC cable defect from field returned defect. - we will replace the ffc cable not applied short term solution product. Thanks SON |
|
|
Hi Tom and Sean Please note that, about FFC short field defect rate so far. Returned total 101 pcs (2022.08) FFC short 18pcs -> 17.82% Thanks SON |
|
|
Hi, SH About question 1. check the q'ty of product without short term solution <tom> Total 4.7K. I will tell you cut in information once MP product with new FFC cable. Thanks ~ Tom |
|
|
Hi Mr.SH, Mr.Yoon, Would you help to reply my question as below? Thank you very much 1.How many new FFC cable do you want to replace?(4.7K or 4,700x17.82%=838?) 2.The FFC cable which you want to replace is new one(P/N : 376.00039.005, long term solution) not short term solution, am I right? BR, Eva Sun |
|
|
Hi Ms. Eva Sun, Now we are replacing FFC Cable which is not applied short term solution now. If we have change, then we should replace all FFC cable that is not applied long term solution or short term solution. 1. We need 4.7K FFC cables. 2. We need new FFC cable(It is applied Long term solution) BR, S YOON |
|
|
Updated the 8D report for FFC cable issue, please kindly review it, thanks. |
|
|
Hi Tom 0001417:0010527 <tom> Total 4.7K. I will tell you cut in information once MP product with new FFC cable. [ALT] Please update cut in information for applied short term solution (after 4.7K) Thanks SON |
|
|
Hi, SH reply 0001417:0011094 Let me discuss internally. I will inform you cut-in information next week. Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
Hi, SH Fii VN factory stock Qty 4271, Intransit Hong Kong BT 6500, Supplier P-TWO manufactured 12K. So totally Qty of currect AMP FFC cable is 22771 pcs (4241+6500+12000=22771). Base on SWAN 2023 forecast 22K. The cut-in time of new AMP FFC cable should be Jan 2024 . Thanks ! Tom |
|
|
No more action. So, close this issue. |
- yk.jung ( (ALTech) Younkwang Jung ) developer
