Searching \ for '[EE] Soldering on to plastic film' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=soldering+plastic
Search entire site for: 'Soldering on to plastic film'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Soldering on to plastic film'
2011\03\01@024151 by Manu Abraham

picon face
Hi,

Recently I came up across a SSD1308 LCD, but the connector is a thin
plastic film with copper conductors. I have been thinking a bit what
would be the right way to deal with such components. Connectors were
really hard to find as well. Soldering onto them poses 2 risks: pads
are too close; secondly it's a plastic film. I suppose that I am not
the first one to use such devices, so I would like to know how others
really deal with such components.

http://robosavvy.com/store/product_info.php/products_id/1424


Best Regards,
Man

2011\03\01@030930 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
I suspect you'd use a PFC connector designed for flat printed "cables" like that rather than soldering directly to the cable.

-Pete

On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Manu Abraham wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2011\03\01@032552 by Manu Abraham

picon face
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Peter Loron <spam_OUTpeterlTakeThisOuTspamstandingwave.org> wrote:
> I suspect you'd use a PFC connector designed for flat printed "cables" like that rather than soldering directly to the cable.
>


I tried a few PFC connectors from some salvaged boards, before I went
trying to source the connector. In all cases, the PFC connector takes
in a thicker Plastic film in comparison to the the SSD1308's film, ie
the plastic film used to connect to such connectors are made a bit
more thicker with a still stiffer plastic material.

Or another thought what's creeping to my mind is to stick a piece of
thin plastic on to one of the side of the film on the SSD130

2011\03\01@062921 by Marten Vijn

flavicon
face

On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 13:11 +0530, Manu Abraham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recently I came up across a SSD1308 LCD, but the connector is a thin
> plastic film with copper conductors. I have been thinking a bit what
> would be the right way to deal with such components. Connectors were
> really hard to find as well. Soldering onto them poses 2 risks: pads
> are too close; secondly it's a plastic film. I suppose that I am not
> the first one to use such devices, so I would like to know how others
> really deal with such components.
>
> robosavvy.com/store/product_info.php/products_id/1424
>

I read the spec sheet:

14.2 Soldering
(1) Soldering should be performed only on the I/O terminals.
(2) Use soldering irons with proper grounding and no leakage.
(3) Iron: no higher than 300°C and 3~4 sec during soldering.

cheers,
Marten

>
> Best Regards,
> Manu

2011\03\01@082748 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
That plastic film can handle soldering temperatures for 10+ seconds
per terminal.  Typically they use Kapton or similar plastic film for
these types of printed flexible circuits, you can check out the
melting point of kapton to get an idea of how nice this stuff is.

You can see how I dealt with it in several pictures here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adavis/sets/72157607726453180/with/4715230416/

And when I was prototyping I ended up soldering 30awg wires (wire wrap
wire) to each signal:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adavis/2929877032/

My soldering iron is set to 650-700C.  Use a lot of flux and it will
heat up very quickly and the solder will flow within a second or
three, so you don't need to keep it on long.

-Adam

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Manu Abraham <.....abraham.manuKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2011\03\01@083444 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
I should point out that my soldering iron is set too high, and if you
look closely at the wire wrap version you'll see that the plastic is
warped and appears to be scorched in some spots.  It still works, but
a lower temperature is more appropiate.

For the PCB version, the PCB was pre tinned, so I simply added flux,
then put the soldering iron on the PCB pad and pressed the flex
terminal onto the heated pad.  I then went back and added a little
solder after everything was tacked down, but even with a high
soldering iron temperature, the plastic was fine.

You'll want to follow the manufacturer's recommendations for soldering
yours, but note that they are pretty robust and can be abused to some
degree for prototypes.  Plan on doing it correctly for units you plan
on distributing.  If you do need to do a lot of these, learn about
"hot bar soldering".

-Adam

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:27 AM, M. Adam Davis <stienmanspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> -

2011\03\01@104433 by Andre Abelian

picon face
How about using conductive epoxy
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=conductive+epoxy&cp=12&qe=Y29uZHVjdGl2ZSBl&qesig=6rIGld4m9mtgZjvixMMyzA&pkc=AFgZ2tntnB6PZvdjDXX9KWKCWNngl8P47VuLBS8oTqEdB0_jJpkfJLFXlbwr4xhKvQvkA2eAQ71eqQ4YSC2Pkh9MzqmWAJujUw&bav=on.1,or.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=8029088274109256848&sa=X&ei=vRNtTYq8Ko7NrQfz6Iz7Bg&sqi=2&ved=0CE4Q8wIwAg#ps-sellers


Andre





________________________________
From: M. Adam Davis <EraseMEstienmanspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <piclistspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 5:27:47 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] Soldering on to plastic film

That plastic film can handle soldering temperatures for 10+ seconds
per terminal.  Typically they use Kapton or similar plastic film for
these types of printed flexible circuits, you can check out the
melting point of kapton to get an idea of how nice this stuff is.

You can see how I dealt with it in several pictures here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adavis/sets/72157607726453180/with/4715230416/

And when I was prototyping I ended up soldering 30awg wires (wire wrap
wire) to each signal:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adavis/2929877032/

My soldering iron is set to 650-700C.  Use a lot of flux and it will
heat up very quickly and the solder will flow within a second or
three, so you don't need to keep it on long.

-Adam

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Manu Abraham <@spam@abraham.manuKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2011\03\02@041351 by Manu Abraham

picon face
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Peter Loron <KILLspampeterlKILLspamspamstandingwave.org> wrote:
> I suspect you'd use a PFC connector designed for flat printed "cables" like that rather than soldering directly to the cable.
>


Eventually, I tried padding the free space between the film and the
empty space in the connector with a small sheet of plastic (instead of
Kapton tape as you suggested) cut in the same dimensions, which I
think works somewhat acceptable for the time being. I got the idea
while removing a dead CD-ROM drive, which used the same technique.

If it doesn't hold good in the longer run, will try Adam's suggestion
of soldering directly to the film.

Thanks for all the ideas.

Best Regards,
Man

2011\03\09@053016 by Manu Abraham

picon face
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:04 PM, M. Adam Davis <RemoveMEstienmanTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> I should point out that my soldering iron is set too high, and if you
> look closely at the wire wrap version you'll see that the plastic is
> warped and appears to be scorched in some spots.  It still works, but
> a lower temperature is more appropiate.
>
> For the PCB version, the PCB was pre tinned, so I simply added flux,
> then put the soldering iron on the PCB pad and pressed the flex
> terminal onto the heated pad.  I then went back and added a little
> solder after everything was tacked down, but even with a high
> soldering iron temperature, the plastic was fine.
>
> You'll want to follow the manufacturer's recommendations for soldering
> yours, but note that they are pretty robust and can be abused to some
> degree for prototypes.  Plan on doing it correctly for units you plan
> on distributing.  If you do need to do a lot of these, learn about
> "hot bar soldering".

Eventually, I had to discard the connector idea, since I guess
contacts were not proper .., which led me to the idea of soldering.
Initially it was a bit scary, but gathering courage, gave it a try. It
was a bit painful, requiring a bit of dexterity. The biggest problem
was the thickness of the wire such that i couldn't align the wires
properly, which led me to solder the wires onto either side of the
film (the film is PTH) You can see the display after soldering.
http://img3.imageshack.us/i/img0997r.jpg/

Thanks for sharing the thought.

2011\03\09@082335 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Manu Abraham wrote:
> http://img3.imageshack.us/i/img0997r.jpg

Warning to all.  Something evil is lurking there.  I started to see a image,
but also got some popup immediately, then after a few seconds the browser
was re-directed somewhere else, so I killed it.  No thanks.

If you want people to look at your picture, it would be a good idea to put
it on your own web site, not some infested place that tries to inflict
itself on the unsuspecting viewers of your image.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\03\09@083536 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 09/03/2011 13:23, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Manu Abraham wrote:
>> http://img3.imageshack.us/i/img0997r.jpg
> Warning to all.  Something evil is lurking there.  I started to see a image,
> but also got some popup immediately, then after a few seconds the browser
> was re-directed somewhere else, so I killed it.  No thanks.
>
> If you want people to look at your picture, it would be a good idea to put
> it on your own web site, not some infested place that tries to inflict
> itself on the unsuspecting viewers of your image.
>

Maybe your it's browser again Olin, it worked fine for me...

2011\03\09@084510 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Oli Glaser wrote:
> Maybe your it's browser again Olin, it worked fine for me...

I don't see how my browser would manufacture a popup and automatically
redirect itself to a different web page.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\03\09@085039 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 09/03/2011 13:23, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Manu Abraham wrote:
>> >  http://img3.imageshack.us/i/img0997r.jpg
> Warning to all.  Something evil is lurking there.  I started to see a image,
> but also got some popup immediately, then after a few seconds the browser
> was re-directed somewhere else, so I killed it.  No thanks.
>
> If you want people to look at your picture, it would be a good idea to put
> it on your own web site, not some infested place that tries to inflict
> itself on the unsuspecting viewers of your image.
no problem here, but I have firefox with "no script" enabled by default.

2011\03\09@085334 by Neil

flavicon
face
That happened to me last year when I got the Shopica virus.  It infected all 3 browsers.  Note the sites that it's redirecting to, and google it to see if it could be the same.

Cheers,
-VinNeil

{Original Message removed}

2011\03\09@090046 by Neil

flavicon
face

Timely discussion btw, because I've also had some issues soldering wires to an LCD display, and found out about hot-bar soldering.  I had the LCD mfgr solder a few for me, but I was not impressed by the aesthetic outcome and will not trust it for more than a prototype.  Is hot-bar the correct way to do this for production-quality solder joints?  Or is there something more reliable?  Doubt I can put these (graphic LCDs) into an oven.

Cheers,
-VinNeil

{Original Message removed}

2011\03\09@092901 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 09/03/2011 13:45, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Oli Glaser wrote:
>> >  Maybe your it's browser again Olin, it worked fine for me...
> I don't see how my browser would manufacture a popup and automatically
> redirect itself to a different web page.
>

I wasn't suggesting (as I'm sure you knew..) your browser "manufactured" anything, more it failed to block stuff.
I understand your point about the personal (ad/script free) webspace. Mine was just that possibly your browser is a little out of date, the internet is unlikely to adapt to your requirements any time soon (likely get worse nasty stuff wise), so maybe Mohammed may have to update his browser.. ;-)

2011\03\09@093243 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
I forgot what the virus was, but had that not long ago redirects and popups. It wasn't every site, but was more than a few redirects. Since I have added Noscript to Firefox, and amazing what it asks for permission, including lots of Google tracking. Usually I allow only the site that I'm visiting.
> I don't see how my browser would manufacture a popup and automatically
> redirect itself to a different web page.
>
>

2011\03\09@093929 by N. T.

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Manu Abraham wrote:
>> http://img3.imageshack.us/i/img0997r.jpg
>
> Warning to all.  Something evil is lurking there.  I started to see a image,
> but also got some popup immediately, then after a few seconds the browser
> was re-directed somewhere else, so I killed it.  No thanks.
>
> If you want people to look at your picture, it would be a good idea to put
> it on your own web site, not some infested place that tries to inflict
> itself on the unsuspecting viewers of your image.
>

Also he may have attached the image. This list works just fine with
attached images.

2011\03\09@095043 by Manu Abraham

picon face
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:09 PM, N. T. <spamBeGonentypesemispamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:
> Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> Manu Abraham wrote:
>>> http://img3.imageshack.us/i/img0997r.jpg
>>
>> Warning to all.  Something evil is lurking there.  I started to see a image,
>> but also got some popup immediately, then after a few seconds the browser
>> was re-directed somewhere else, so I killed it.  No thanks.
>>
>> If you want people to look at your picture, it would be a good idea to put
>> it on your own web site, not some infested place that tries to inflict
>> itself on the unsuspecting viewers of your image.
>>
>
> Also he may have attached the image. This list works just fine with
> attached images.


- 4Mbytes * # of users is quite a significant bandwidth on the mail server side

- If everyone started to send such attachments and when you are
subscribed with multiple ML's and if every ML did the same, Phew ...

- always better to send a link, so that only the interested need to
download the file. (There could possibly be others who are not
interested in downloading the file, why tax them ? Not all people
might be on a desktop PC with lot of storage, In this era we have
portable devices, net tops and what not ..)

- Nowadays, there's advertising with almost any service that's around
(Push technology, as opposed to Pull technology).

2011\03\09@102158 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
N. T. wrote:
> Also he may have attached the image.

Bad idea.  That forces the server to replicate the file 2000 times, once for
each subscriber.  The maximum attachment size of PIClist posts is limited
exactly to prevent abuse like that.

Just dump it on a server and give use the URL.  It's a good idea to use a
server though that doesn't inflict a lot of annoying popups or worse on the
people you want to view your image.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\03\09@105826 by N. T.

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> N. T. wrote:
>> Also he may have attached the image.
>
> Bad idea.  That forces the server to replicate the file 2000 times, once for
> each subscriber.  The maximum attachment size of PIClist posts is limited
> exactly to prevent abuse like that.
>

I don't think so, the internet provider behind the MIT's Mailman is
rather smart. I'm sure, for 1000 Gmail accounts it won't send the
image 1000 times. These bulk mail players are forced to sit on special
internet providers, I believe.
Regardless of above, think of the image file as only a small fraction
of a percent of an flv, mp4 and other GByte multimedia files flying
back and forth all over the net.

2011\03\09@120244 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 09/03/2011 15:58, N. T. wrote:
> I don't think so, the internet provider behind the MIT's Mailman is
> rather smart. I'm sure, for 1000 Gmail accounts it won't send the
> image 1000 times. These bulk mail players are forced to sit on special
> internet providers, I believe.

I'll bet on it sending 1000 copies.

2011\03\09@124541 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Oh yeah, that's some bad juju going on there.  I normally trust
imageshack, but I'm guessing they don't vet their ads very well.

Either way, I grabbed the image and hosted it on flickr, which should
be significantly safer:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adavis/5512115353/

-Adam

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Olin Lathrop <TakeThisOuTolin_piclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTembedinc.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2011\03\09@125057 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
The list, IIRC, rejects attachments that are over a certain size.

Further, the mail list *does& infact duplicate every bit of the email,
including the attachment, for all the users.

Large mail services, such a gmail, might notice that the emails are
the same, and store only one copy for all their users, however the
email is still sent once per user.

MIT is already gracious enough to let us consume a not-insignificant
amount of their bandwidth for this mailing list, let's not push the
issue further.  What the OP did was the correct action - host it
somewhere, provide a link.  Hopefully imageshack will correct the
problem.

I've had no such problems with photobucket or flickr, and can
recommend their free services as good enough.

-Adam

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:39 AM, N. T. <RemoveMEntypesemispamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2011\03\09@131259 by Matt Pobursky

flavicon
face
I'm kind of surprised no one brought this up sooner...

What you are dealing with is a TAB (Tape Automated Bonding) display
connector. It's meant to be soldered to the PCB directly, typically by a
Hot Bar Soldering machine. I've used these types of display in a few
designs and they are very common in high volume devices, especially with
space and cost restrictions. I haver a contract manufacturer close to me
that has a Hot Bar soldering system to get prototype work done.

TAB connections are quite common on small graphical LCD and OLED modules.
In fact, if you tear apart a cell phone, PDA or similar device there's at
least a 50-50 chance it uses a TAB display connector.

See here for a good explanation:

http://www.crystalfontz.com/forum/showthread.php?p=26654&posted=1#post26654

Glad you got it working!

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems


On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:00:15 +0530, Manu Abraham wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> Thanks for sharing the thought.

2011\03\09@133019 by Bob Ammerman

flavicon
face
> On 09/03/2011 15:58, N. T. wrote:
>> I don't think so, the internet provider behind the MIT's Mailman is
>> rather smart. I'm sure, for 1000 Gmail accounts it won't send the
>> image 1000 times. These bulk mail players are forced to sit on special
>> internet providers, I believe.
>
> I'll bet on it sending 1000 copies.

Yep, me too. I'd give 10:1 odds on it (maybe 100:1).

-- Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

2011\03\10@143151 by Joe Koberg

flavicon
face
On 2011-03-09 07:23, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Manu Abraham wrote:
>> http://img3.imageshack.us/i/img0997r.jpg
> Warning to all.  Something evil is lurking there.  I started to see a image,
> but also got some popup immediately, then after a few seconds the browser
> was re-directed somewhere else, so I killed it.  No thanks.
>
> If you want people to look at your picture, it would be a good idea to put
> it on your own web site, not some infested place that tries to inflict
> itself on the unsuspecting viewers of your image.
>

Have you considered using a browser that blocks javascript by default?  I use Firefox with NoScript, and I whitelist only the javascript I choose.   Much less chance of unexpected behavior.   I also block flash and many cookies, preventing further tracking evil.

Also, to the OP, I choose Amazon S3 for hosting static images and files.  My monthly bill this month was $0.25, and I have at least several hundred megabytes of data stored.  It's delivered over Amazon's fast network, and you can add-on their CloudFront content delivery network option to get it cached near the end users if you expect lots of traffic.

S3 was originally designed to be a storage system for their cloud computing service, but since it offers HTTP access to stored data it is a natural for static website content.   I have found it far preferable to basically any kind of file hosting service or ISP "web space".   I use a very straightforward firefox extension called S3Fox to manage the data there.  You can set a CNAME in your DNS to point to S3, so no one needs to know it's not your server.

Data is not published by default; you must set an ACL to allow public read access.  It also allows HTTPS access, and you can generate a "pre-signed" url that only allows access to the holder of the URL for a specified amount of time... great for moving large files to clients.

Joe Koberg

2011\03\10@143545 by Joe Koberg

flavicon
face
On 2011-03-09 09:58, N. T. wrote:
>
> I don't think so, the internet provider behind the MIT's Mailman is
> rather smart. I'm sure, for 1000 Gmail accounts it won't send the
> image 1000 times. These bulk mail players are forced to sit on special
> internet providers, I believe.

That's a standard feature of most mail transfer agents; they'll group all the recipients in the same domain (or which share an MX) into one transmission, informing the receiver of all the recipient addresses.

Joe Koberg

2011\03\10@143851 by Joe Koberg

flavicon
face
On 2011-03-09 08:32, Carl Denk wrote:
> I forgot what the virus was, but had that not long ago redirects and
> popups. It wasn't every site, but was more than a few redirects. Since I
> have added Noscript to Firefox, and amazing what it asks for permission,
> including lots of Google tracking. Usually I allow only the site that
> I'm visiting.


I really wish that the browser treated each destination domain as a different "sandbox" and that cookies set for that domain never leaked to visits to other domains.  That would eliminate cross-domain tracking, while allowing full functionality of every site.

But nowadays I suspect the browser makers see the advertisers as their "customers", not the users.  After all, if you don't pay for the product, you are the product.

Joe Koberg

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...