TECHNET Archives

February 2015

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:
X-To:
"TechNet E-Mail Forum ([log in to unmask])" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:23:55 +0000
Reply-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Amol Kane <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From:
Amol Kane <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
Schlumberger-Private
________________________________
Dear Technetters,
What are people using to inspect co-planarity of gull wing devices (fine pitch QFPs and SOICs) prior and post soldering? I am especially interested in techniques that can detect small differences in z axis causing the lead to just "sit" on solder after assembly and cause premature failure or intermittent operation. I was looking on line and found some inspection mirrors for pre-soldering inspection but not a whole lot else. I would be grateful if you can share your experiences regarding what other techniques work.

On a related topic; what is the general feeling about correcting coplanarity issues by using reworking templates to push the leads back to their intended position. I do not like it as it may damage the seal around the lead and the body depending on the extent of rework. Can you point me to any studies done on this topic that highlight the failure modes resulting from this practice?

Thanks,
Amol


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2