By Max Peel
During the surrender of the British to the Americans at Yorktown at the end of the Revolutionary War, it was the custom of the day that the surrendering forces would march out of their fortifications while their band played a popular tune of the day. As the strongest nation in the world laid their arms down, the tune being played was “The World Turne Upside Down.”
As the title of the tune implies, the perceived results of the conflict was the complete opposite of the expected. Similarly, the connector industry is slipping into the same situation. The activities within the industry in the last several years are a bit startling, and follow the globalization philosophy initiated by our political leaders, who never thought the problem through.
From a positive point of view, connector technology has been innovative in various areas. Spacing between pins has decreased to 0.5 mm. Large-format connector and socket systems are up to 2000 positions and increasing. A wide range of applications, including automotive, consumer, and medical, among others, have resulted in the development of new connector families. Modular systems have introduced a mix of coax, signal, power, and fiberoptics. The use of low-normal force systems has increased. And elastomeric technology has greatly improved.
Countering these positive moves, a series of negative factors has gradually evolved that have started to overpower the positive. A prime example is the opposite direction being taken by the designer and manufacturer. The designer has increased innovation, particularly with the development of new and faster devices, creating new products with wide-ranging applications. This has resulted in new dynamics impacting the connector environment: more sensitive and sophisticated devices, new environmental requirements, and new applications.
Although connector configuration has changed, technology has moved in the opposite direction. Use of “gold-look” contacts is increasing to make gold-flash contacts look thick. However, gold thickness in some connectors is as low as 1 µ" and tin platings are as low as 35 µ". This plating integrity issue has not been addressed. Adding to the mix is the increasing use of low-force contact systems without compensating for proper contact function.
A decrease in knowledge of basic contact physics compounds the problem. What is the relationship of resistance versus normal force? What are “a” spots? What is constriction resistance? The factors influencing common failure mechanisms, particularly where uncontrolled environments are involved, are not well understood and in some instances, are completely unanticipated.
There is evidence of nickel underplate, for example, being removed. When asked why, a number of disturbing answers are given: “did not know why it was there,” “not needed,” or “to reduce price.” There is far more emphasis on price and schedules than on technology.
It seems connector engineers are becoming an endangered species, and being replaced by expediters. However, on the other side of the fence, the user is becoming more adept in understanding the technology and how to interrelate their functional concerns. Users are becoming interested in making sure the connectors tested will meet their application-specific needs and environmental considerations. The connector industry still treats products as if they were general-purpose products. In conjunction with this activity with the emphasis on user-driven technology, new special interest groups have been created, such as USB and the International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative (iNEMI). The lead-free protocols are beginning to control connector standards, as well as performance criteria, resulting in the industry becoming reactive as opposed to proactive. Little to no research is being performed, with a loss of technological leadership occurring as well.
The offshore problem
To add to this, new manufacturing centers have developed rapidly, created under the banner of free trade, globalization, and all its lordly benefits. Who can oppose the “political correctness” of these events? The movement to offshore connector manufacturing encompasses two situations-the transfer of U.S.-based operations to overseas locations, and the evolution of new foreign companies. The main area of development is Asia, and to a lesser degree, Mexico. This has brought a new set of problems to deal with.
First, the transfer of information has been less than successful. Good manufacturing practices in these areas are lagging and in a few areas, a “cottage” industry has developed with no control. Pollution is a major issue that can impact the contamination of products. A mind set exists counter to producing high-quality product at the lowest cost. This last point is hair-raising. The attitude is that the U.S. tends to over-design and that we do not need the design guidelines of the past-connectors do not fail because of the design, but rather from being misapplied or improperly tested. This is dangerous because design guidelines were developed for a reason.
The final point of contention is the concept of reinventing technology, such as the lead-free initiative. Although I understand the rationale for the movement, I feel as if I’m in a time warp back to the late 50s-the issue of lead-free tin and the problem of tin whiskering was at the forefront of technology. A great deal of information was forthcoming, with many papers and dissertations on the topic from organizations such as the “Tin Research Institute” and BTL, outlining the research proposals and presenting data. When the solution of adding 32% lead was implemented, the problem was solved.
The work performed by iNEMI has been excellent, but it was a repeat of that which was ongoing 45 years ago with a few new twists. The problem is that the data from the original work is not on the Internet. It is as though data predating the Internet does not exist, which is a problem with a lot of connector industry information between the 60s and the mid-80s. That was the era of debating and the presentation of information relating technology such as contact physics, fretting corrosion, importance of normal force, wear, plating and porosity issues, and contact lubricant studies.
Perhaps one of the most important studies was the evaluation of the environment by the Battelle Institute, leading to the mixed flowing gas test. Although some mention of this work is on the Internet, it’s not as prevalent as it should be. To quote a forgotten philosopher: “Those who have forgotten the past are bound to repeat it,” and that, unfortunately, is happening in this industry.
 |
MAX PEEL is senior fellow at Contech Research, 67 Mechanic St., Attleboro, MA 02703. Tel: (508) 226-4800; Email: maxconres@aol.com.
