TECHNET Archives

February 1998

TechNet@IPC.ORG
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
[log in to unmask]
Date:
Wed, 18 Feb 1998 17:02:05 EST
Reply-To:
"TechNet E-Mail Forum." <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Subject:
Re: Min. Annular Ring
From:
Lyle Wallig <[log in to unmask]>
Content-transfer-encoding:
7bit
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines) 
Since your question asked what is the smallest minimum annular ring, I know of
one very complex 52 layer PWB that is designed and built using a pad size that
is 6-mils larger than the drill size, giving nominal  annular ring of 3-mils.
6-mils over the drill size is a nice rule of thumb for the "smallest minimum"
annular ring.

Regards,
Lyle Wallig

################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TechNet 
################################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://jefry.ipc.org/forum.htm) for additional information.
For the technical support contact Dmitriy Sklyar at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.311
################################################################

ATOM RSS1 RSS2