Steven responded to my earlier post off line and I would like to amend the
post with these additional lines.

Users always have the option of relaxing their acceptance criteria if the
standard is more rigorous than required.

Under section 6.3.1, which provides an exception to the vertical fill
requirements in Class 2 products, a note adds a warning to users:

Less than 100% fill many not be adequate to ensure reliability in some
service environments. The note does not suggest that 50% is acceptable for
class 3 products. The note requires users to notify manufactures when 100%
vertical fill is necessary to ensure product reliability.

The vertical fill  requirements were discussed at length (hours) during
development of the standard. Steven's opinion is not reflected in the text
of the standard. While there were members that would agree with him, it was
not the consensus of the committee.

Guy Ramsey
Senior Technician / Instructor
 <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Ph:  (610) 362-1200 x107
Fax: (610) 362-1290



>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guy Ramsey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 11:55 AM
> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum.; Sauer, Steven T.
> Subject: RE: [TN] PTH Vertical Fill Requirement IPC610 Rev. C
>
>
>
> The interpretation of the standard in your reply is incorrect  (which is
> included below).
>
> The exception to vertical requirements, IPC-A-610C section 6.3.1, does not
> apply to class 3 products.
>
> The exception, which allows a 50% vertical fill when thermal transfer is
> slowed by a thermal or conductor planes in a multi layer board
> applies only
> to Class 2 products.
>
> This is not a matter of opinion. There is no conflict, 6.3.1 is
> an specific
> exception to the requirements of table 6-2 in section 6.3.
>
> J-STD-001C repeats this requirement in section 9.2.5.1
>
> Guy Ramsey
> Senior Technician / IPC-A-610 and IPC J-STD-001C Master Instructor
>
> E-Mail: < mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
> Ph:  (610) 362-1200 x107
> Fax: (610) 362-1290
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TechNet [ mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> ]On Behalf
> Of Sauer, Steven T.
> > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 7:54 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [TN] PTH Vertical Fill Requirement IPC610 Rev. C
> >
> >
> > Good Morning Carl,
> > For starters I would like to say, "Good question, this is going
> to spread
> > hysteria throughout Technet land!"  This reminds me of the good 'ol days
> > providing clarifications and interpretations of mil specs/std that was
> > somewhat entertaining.
> > IMHO -- you are correct in your interpretation that the noted
> exception on
> > page 6-7 applices to class 2 & 3 (also note that this page
> conflicts with
> > table 6-2 Class 2 that states that 75% hole fill is required while 6-7
> > states 50% is acceptable).  BUT, the user must ensure that this is
> > acceptable for the intended use environment and all the 'ilities are
> > unaffected.  I would much rather accept 50% hole fill any day than to
> > perform touch-up -- oh the joint looks better now, but seriously
> > let's look
> > at what damage has been done to innerlayer interconnections
> (oh, we can't
> > see that so it must be okay).
> > Have a nice day!
> >
> > Steve Sauer
> > Northrop Grumman, Xetron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask] [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:44 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [TN] PTH Vertical Fill Requirement IPC610 Rev. C
> >
> >
> >                 Hello,
> >
> > Looking for the groups opinion(s) on the vertical fill
> > requirement stated on
> > page 6-7 of IPC-A-610C.
> >
> > Is the exception pertaining to the Defect Class 3?
>
>