 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Tue, 28 May 1996 15:17:29 -0500 (CDT) |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Wed Jun 5 11: |
49:03 1996 |
| X-Sender: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"-yZbS3.0.f63.Iurgn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uOV7b-0000F1C; Tue, 28 May 96 15:12 CDT |
| Cc: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b6 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
The reasoning behind this testing would be to "ensure" the peel strength is
sufficient for constructions with foil lamination. In a foil lamination
construction, you would not be testing something previously tested at the
raw material level, because "newly created" laminate is holding the surface
conductors. See IPC-T-50 definition of foil lamination. Note that per
IPC-RB-276, para. 3.10.4, this applies only to Military Class 3 product
built with foil lamination.
>
> Does anyone have any data regarding the bond strength suface mount
> test listed in Table 18 of IPC-RB-276. Aren't we testing peel
> strength which has already been tested at the raw material level?
> Thanks for your attention.
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
David Estes
PCB Commodity Management
Texas Instruments
ph: 214-997-2942
fax: 2214-997-2656
e-mail: [log in to unmask] (or the above address)
|
|
|
