My company is now using Fuji SMT machine, and is now considering to purchase QP132. Appreciate if sone one let me know about QP132's capability, relaiability and atability on the production. And what is advantages conpared to Philips FCM.
| My company is now using Fuji SMT machine, and is now considering to purchase QP132. Appreciate if sone one let me know about QP132's capability, relaiability and atability on the production. And what is advantages conpared to Philips FCM. | |Other than speed I don't know of any advantages it has over the FCM. What I have determined is the following:
1. Theoretical speed of the FCM is 96 cph, QP-1 is 140 cph 2. One QP-1 takes up twice the floor space as one FCM. 3. QP-1 uses mchanical feeders, FCM uses electronic 4. FCM can handle from 8 to 44 mm tape, QP-1 can only handle 8 and 12mm 5. FCM holds up to 96- 8mm tape feeders but with bulk feeders it doubles the feeder capacity. QP-1 uses twin tape feeders so it can hold 192 feeders. 6. The FCM is scalable which means that you can start with fewer than 16 placement heads and then add heads at a later time when the additional output is needed. The QP-1 is not scalable so it is only available with 16 heads 7. QP-1 uses vision alignment, FCM uses laser or vision depending on the part being placed. 8. A good question to ask both vendors is how long does it take to replace and calibrate a placement head if it goes down. I think you will be surprised at how much more flexible the FCM is. 9. Both systems use carrier plate positioning to locate the board during placement. The QP-1 uses a recirculating system which moves the carriers through the machine. What I don't know is the long term accuracy of this type of sytem which is a concern for 0402 or 0201 placement. 10. Software is the key that makes the parallel placement concept work or not work. Philips has mastered this from being the pioneer of this concept. I think Fuji has a long way to go as far as software is concerned so be careful and get references from happy customers.