APEX 2010 appeared to be a great success. Attendance was high and my “Lead-Free Assembly” workshop broke a personal record of about 60 attendees.
While at the show, I was invited to a meeting on solderless assembly, ably organized by Phil Marcoux. About 15 people were at the meeting. The intent of the meeting, was to crystallize what is needed to make solderless technology a reality. Many have suggested that solderless assembly’s time is now. The main reason being the challenges of lead-free solder-based assembly and its perceived lack of reliability. Some believe that solderless technology is a next logical step in assembly on the order of importance of the advent of SMT assembly.
I was well behaved at the meeting (I am a somewhat renowned skeptic of solderless assembly), but pointed out, early on, that any solderless assembly technique (the Occam process being a likely contender), must be disassemble-able to meet the requirements of WEEE.
Much spirited but pleasant discussion transpired, related to what is needed to make this technology a reality. Several folks mentioned that a “killer app” would be needed to kick-start solderless assembly, and supply the considerable monies needed.
Finally, near the end of the meeting, Phil, suggesting I had been too quiet, and asked me to chime in. I said that I agreed that a killer app was needed, and proceeded to tell a story. It went as such:
Let’s say it was several years ago and Steve Jobs heard about solderless technology. He was wondering if it might be right for Apple’s future killer app, the iPad. So we are invited to visit him on Infinity Drive. After confidentially agreements are signed, he starts speaking. He proceeds to tell us that the BOM for the entry level iPad is $250 and assembly adds $9 . Reliability of lead-free products has been equal to, or better than, leaded products and lead-free enables finer PWB lead spacings than does leaded solder. So he is not unhappy with lead-free assembly, but would like to do solderless technology, if it makes sense. The assembled cost has to be less than the $259 and solderless reliability must be better. We would need to be ready for an April 2010 launch.
I think the cost metrics in this scenario would be difficult for a solderless technology to compete with. And, even if the price was a few dollars less, what is the compelling reason to change?
SMT arrived because through-hole technology could not meet the miniaturization requirements of modern electronics. We could not have modern electronics without SMT. What are the compelling reasons solderless technology should be used in an application like the one discussed above? The answer still escapes me.