ONE PANEL, FOUR APERTURE DESIGNS
What the panel showed
One panel, four groups of identical boards, four aperture designs, one paste and one machine setting. Everything was printed in a single run so that the stencil was the only variable that changed.
- Design 1 — aperture matched to the pad, 0.120 mm stencil
- 1:1 baseline
- Design 2 — aperture width reduced to lift the area ratio
- area-reduced
- Design 3 — stencil thinned locally at the fine-pitch device
- stepped
- Design 4 — one large aperture divided into windows
- windowed
WHAT SPI READ, IN DIRECTION
Where each design landed
Readings are given as direction and window status rather than as numbers lifted from one board, because the useful result of the panel is which way each design moves the deposit.
- Design 1, volume on 0.4 mm pitch pads
- below window
- Design 1, bridging at the fine-pitch device
- present
- Design 2, volume
- inside window
- Design 2, spread across the panel
- wider
- Design 3, volume
- inside window
- Design 3, spread across the panel
- narrowest
- Design 4, volume on the thermal pad
- inside window
- Design 4, print time per panel
- longer
The trade the panel exposes is the one in the criteria table: thickness buys area ratio and costs volume. Design 3 lifted the area ratio of the fine-pitch apertures by thinning the stencil there, and gave up paste volume across those same apertures — in the published example, about 17% of it. Design 2 kept the volume by taking area out of the aperture instead. Neither is a general answer: the design that holds the print window is chosen per pad geometry, and the stencil is the cheapest place on the line to fix it.