 
| Received: |
by ipchq.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0sxL4D-0000HAC; Mon, 25 Sep 95 16:28 CDT |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 25 Sep 95 14:09:54 -0700 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 14: |
53:07 1996 |
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"O3eFL3.0.Tq8._wnPm"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| X-Mailer: |
Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) |
| Organization: |
INTEL |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I have had requests for the reduction of the 30m" minimum for tab plating
recently. Where did the 30m" minimum average rule come from?
We have recently had to deal with some turnkey fabs having less than
30m"; in the range of 10m". We did porosity tests and accelerated aging,
etc. We could find no problems with the boards. (The nickel was around
50m".)
The question is: Does anyone have any reliable data for gold thickness
vs. life for any products? ..like consumer; simms; other computer add
ons?
I know that gold defects are not major hitters in PCB shops, but it is a
bottle neck, correct?
Steve
|
|
|
