If you do not accept the 25% option, the manufacture can attempt to 
repress the part to eliminate the "sodastrawing".

William A. Ortloff
Engineering Fellow
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies
Raytheon Company

310.607.7333 office
310.616.1873 fax
520.245.4436 cell
[log in to unmask]



Chris Mahanna <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: IPC-600-6012 <[log in to unmask]>
09/01/2009 03:41 PM
Please respond to
"(Combined Forum of D-33a and 7-31a Subcommittees)" <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: [IPC-600-6012] sodastrawing






So if it is not bonded at all, isn't that 100% dielectric reduction?
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francis Byle
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] sodastrawing

Here's an image for discussion... The areas between the traces are not 
bonded at all. I'm not going to register my opinion, but am interested in 
the opinions of others on the acceptability of this flex. For background, 
it has a single layer of metallization, and uses an acrylic adhesive.

Regards,

Fritz Byle
Astronautics Corp.

-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris 
Mahanna
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 20:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [IPC-600-6012] sodastrawing

Hi all,

A customer has ask me to query the group about coverlayer sodastrawing.

From the applicable paragraphs in 6013 and 600, one could interpret 
sodastrawing as completely unacceptable unless it is a "nonlamination" , 
in which case it can reduce dielectric spacing by 25%.
Unfortunately there appears to be a disagreement about whether 
sodastrawing is to be included as a nonlamination.

Thanks,
Chris

The following line is added for your protection and will be used for 
analysis if this message is reported as spam:

(Raytheon Analysis: IP=208.80.245.194; [log in to unmask]; 
[log in to unmask]; date=Sep 1, 2009 10:37:30 PM; subject=Re: 
[IPC-600-6012] sodastrawing)