TECHNET Archives

July 2018

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
Sender:
TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
[log in to unmask]
Date:
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:59:11 +0300
Reply-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Eray CANLI <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
IPC-A-610 Board-in-Board Class 3 Acceptability
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
From:
Eray CANLI <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines) 
Dear TechNetters,

This is my first post on TN, and it is nice to be part of this list.

I have a confusion on "Supported Holes - Board in Board" part of IPC-A-610
document. How should we interpret the statement "No board in board criteria
have been established for Class 3 assemblies". Not sure if IPC forbids
board-in-board solder assembly in Class 3.

Should we avoid vertical assembly of boards to each other (without
connector) in Class 3 designs, or develop our own acceptability criteria?

Thanks in advance!
Eray CANLI

ATOM RSS1 RSS2