TECHNET Archives

May 1999

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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:
Ryan Jennens <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
"TechNet E-Mail Forum." <[log in to unmask]>, Ryan Jennens" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 14 May 1999 14:11:51 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (887 bytes) , text/html (1522 bytes)

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Ryan Jennens [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
  Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 11:51 AM
  To: TechNet
  Subject: Fine Powder Solder Paste


  What stencil design guidelines differ when one decides to go with

  a -400/+500 particle size solder paste? The paste companies tout that the

  finer particle paste offers print improvements below 20 mil pitch. But I

  believe one would have to reduce the aperture sizes all around because
more

  metal would be deposited in each one. Is this accurate? How much reduction

  is needed. Is home-plating the apertures even more important? I could not

  find this topic in the archives. We are considering switching for our

  finer-pitch boards, as their pitch decreases, if it really offers an

  advantage. However, we have been printing 20-mil for a long time

  with -325/+500 paste for quite a while.

  -Ryan Jennens

  TelGen Corporation



ATOM RSS1 RSS2