 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Type: |
multipart/mixed;
boundary="PART-BOUNDARY=.19512212009.ZM10169.cig.mot.com" |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 21 Dec 1995 20:09:34 +0000 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Cc: |
reesm@prut |
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 15: |
33:06 1996 |
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"saIQt1.0.kVJ.rvRsm"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tSrGo-0000MFC; Thu, 21 Dec 95 14:07 CST |
| Encoding: |
2 TEXT BOUNDARY, 21 MESSAGE, 2 TEXT BOUNDARY, 5 MESSAGE, 3 TEXT BOUNDARY |
| X-Mailer: |
Z-Mail (3.0.0 15dec93) |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Does anyone have experience with using high value non-polarised (ceramic?)
substitutes for SMT tantulum capacitors? Does it look like a winner or a
loser in terms of yield/reliability problems?
One problem we're looking to eliminate is the "time-bomb" effect of low ppm
level of reversed tantulum caps (they may take months to "blow"). They are
possibly reversed when missing autoplaced components are hand-placed in
rework.
On the other hand we've also had issues with a bad batch of MLC ceramics
doing similar tricks (going low ohm s/c after shipment). Both can cause major
problems in the field when fed from high-current power supplies.
Thanks for your time and have a good Christmas.
Terry Davey ([log in to unmask])
|
|
|
