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:
Date:
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 12:42:11 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
Bob Vanech 

The statement in IPC-D-275 requiring 0.001 annular ring is for design
purposes.  You always design to have an annular ring, you do not design for
breakout.  IPC-RB-276 accepts no breakout for Class 3, but allows a 90 degree
breakout for Class 2 and a 180 degree breakout for Class 1.   This is the
manufacturing acceptance criteria which allows some "not entirely perfection"
in the board for some Classes.  If you read the same paragraph in the
forthcoming issue of the replacement for IPC-D-275 which is IPC-2221 you will
find words to the effect that the annular ring number is for desig
calculation and that the performance specifications may allow breakouts for
some classes.

Phil Hinton 
Hinton "PWB" Engineering 
[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.        *
***************************************************************************



ATOM RSS1 RSS2