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

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.

RM 196: Dr. James Maisiri on Responsible Technology Adoption

Today, we’re going to explore a topic that seems to be touching nearly every industry, every workplace, and increasingly every part of our daily lives: artificial intelligence. But this conversation is not just about what AI can do. It’s about what AI assumes, what it values, what it misses, and what happens when powerful technologies are deployed into environments they were not designed to understand. Mike Konrad's guest is Dr. James Maisiri, an AI researcher and writer whose work focuses on responsible AI, digital transformation, education, labor markets, and the societal impact of emerging technologies.  His work has been featured through organizations and publications including UNESCO, Guardian, and others, and his message is both simple and profound: AI is not neutral. In one of his three TEDx talks, Dr. Maisiri said, "If Africa does not shape AI, then AI will shape Africa."  While his work often focuses on African communities and institutions, the lesson is much broader.  Every industry, including electronics manufacturing, needs to think carefully about how we adopt AI, what assumptions are built into these systems, and how we validate their use before trusting their output. In electronics reliability, we often say that context matters. Materials, environments, residues, humidity, temperature, field conditions, and use cases all influence performance.

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.

PCB Chat 157: Tomachie's CJ Clark Discusses AI-driven Schematic and Test Analysis

Tomachie has quite a few tricks up its sleeve. Its eponymous platform provides AI-assisted analysis of PCB schematic data. It optimizes DfT and identifies the ideal locations for physical test point insertion. And it generates a 0-100 layout-readiness score, providing design teams with an objective, data-driven metric. Tomachie is the brainchild of CJ Clark, a veteran test engineer with a background in JTAG and boundary scan technology, not to mention five patents under his belt. He is also CEO of Intellitech, Tomachie's sibling company. CJ spoke with Andy Shaughnessy about Tomachie, what AI can and can't do, and why he wishes his team had access to a tool like this 25 years ago.

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.