TECHNET Archives

1995

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
Received:
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0tJoEm-0000MeC; Sun, 26 Nov 95 15:03 CST
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Old-Return-Path:
<miso!vicorgate.vicr.com!dhickey>
Date:
Wed, 22 Nov 1995 16:11:58 -0500
Precedence:
list
Resent-From:
Resent-Sender:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Status:
O
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/244
From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 15:
20:37 1996
TO:
Return-Path:
X-Status:
Content-Description:
cc:Mail note part
Subject:
From:
X-Loop:
Mime-Version:
1.0
Resent-Message-ID:
<"yV53q2.0.7jB.oODkm"@ipc>
Message-Id:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
     .0003 min./.0015 max.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Minimum Solder Thickness @ Assembly
Author:  [log in to unmask] at Internet
Date:    11/21/95 9:55 AM


As fabricators, we have had it drilled into us that "flat solder is best" 
for assembly. We have never received a return from any customer for "thin 
solder", but I can't say the opposite is true. My process engineers desire 
to alter our hot air solder leveling parameters to eliminate any future 
chances of returns for thick solder. Our SPC data suggests that lowering the 
peak solder thicknesses results in exceptionally thin solder (IMO) on 
certain pad geometries. My question:
     
How thin is too thin? As assemblers, when (at what thickness or process 
conditions) would you return boards to the fabricator?
     
     
[log in to unmask] (Glynn Shaw)
     



ATOM RSS1 RSS2