TECHNET Archives

1996

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
David Bergman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 13 Aug 1996 22:51:51 -0500 (CDT)
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (72 lines)
Gary regarding a 55110 equivalent, try IPC-RB-276.  This document is 
published but will shortly be superseded by IPC-6011 (Generic PWB 
performance) and 6012 (Rigid PWB performance)

Regards
__________________________________________________

David W. Bergman, Technical Director
IPC
2215 Sanders Road
Northbrook, IL  60062-6135
847-509-9700 x340 Phone
847-509-9798 Fax
email  [log in to unmask]
www  http://www.ipc.org
faxback support 800-646-0089
---------------------------------------------------


On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Gary Peterson wrote:

> I am in an advanced development group at Sandia.  For the last 8 years
> we have used commercial PWBs and solder-assembly methods/suppliers for
> all of our projects.  These were typically 6Ux160mm VME boards, double-sided
> SMT with some thru-hole connectors, 8 to 10 layers, nominal 5/5 lines/spaces,
> 180 Tg FR4.  Components included PBGAs, 25-mil and 50-mil pitch SOICs and PQFPs,
> 0.5mm and 0.4mm pitch PQFPs, etc.  Speeds from 10-80MHz CMOS to high-speed ECL
> and GAS RF stuff for RADARs and the like.  Some controlled impedance required.
> 
> We are brainstorming issues related to commercial suppliers for future
> weapons component PWBs.  Can anyone help me with a comparison of
> commercial specs. vs "mil" specs.  I don't know much about the mil-specs
> but I thought I heard they are being eliminated.  Is there and IPC spec
> that can be called out that will give the weapons guys the equivalent of
> their old mil-P-55110 boards?  My impression of most good PWB vendors today
> is that we can't buy a bad board no matter how hard we try.
> 
> The most convincing argument would be a side-by-side comparison of the
> required tests for meeting the IPC commercial spec vs its military spec
> equivalent.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Gary P.
> ---
>                                   Gary D. Peterson
>     _/_/_/   _/    _/  _/        SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES     _/_/_/
>    _/       _/_/  _/  _/        P.O. Box 5800, M/S 0503            _/_/
>   _/_/_/   _/ _/ _/  _/        Albuquerque, NM 87185-0503     _/_/_/_/_/_/
>      _/   _/  _/_/  _/        Phone: (505)844-6980           _/  _/_/  _/
> _/_/_/   _/    _/  _/_/_/_/  FAX: (505)844-2925             _/  _/_/  _/
>                             E-Mail: [log in to unmask]        _/_/_/
> 
> 
> ***************************************************************************
> * TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
> ***************************************************************************
> * To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to:           *
> * [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text.        *
> ***************************************************************************
> 
> 

***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to:           *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text.        *
***************************************************************************



ATOM RSS1 RSS2