TECHNET Archives

July 2000

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:
"Speer, Ewart" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:04:55 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2577 bytes) , text/html (3511 bytes)
Hello Technetters:

I have some questions for the contract and OEM manufacturers.
	
Have you experienced any problems with multilayer PWBs that do not utilize
thermal relief for power connections on the stringer (break-out) vias for
surface mount components?  This can include chip caps and resistors, BGAs
and QFPs.  Ex:  Power connections using 0.02 to 0.03 inch trace widths on
discrete components, 0.008 to 0.011 inch trace widths on QFPs, and 0.005 to
0.006 inch trace widths on BGAs.  All connections direct to plane.  All
signal layers ½ oz, plane layers 1oz base material.

What size test point pads are you requesting/requiring for ICT?  What is the
desired/minimum pitch between these test points?  What type of tip do you
have the most success with?

Are you having better luck mounting BGAs on PWBs that were constructed with
a high Tg FR4 verses standard FR4 material?  Do you still see HASL as the
predominant finish on PWBs with BGA or QFP devices?  

Polarity orientation and component proximity errors notwithstanding, what
are the most common problems associated with assembly that can be traced
back to a poor layout?  What seems to be your most consistent problems
associated with a given layout?

Do you mostly rely on an assembly drawing or the silkscreen marking to
place, inspect, and troubleshoot polarized components?  If a PWBs component
density is such that some of the reference designators and part outlines
have to be removed for clarity is it advantageous to have a single dot of
ink in the center of the component pads?  To whom and what kind of advantage
would this afford?  Could this ink dot height be of concern for chip-type
parts in that both terminals do not contact the pads?

I hope this post was not too long winded.  I still have additional questions
that I would like answers for, but will save those for another time.  Thank
you for finding time out of your busy schedules to answer these questions.  

Best regards,
Ewart Speer


     - - - - - - -  Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.  - - - - - - -  
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is
confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The
information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person
responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, print, retain,
copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail
and delete it from your computer. 




ATOM RSS1 RSS2