 
| Received: |
by ipchq.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0stFHz-0000HDC; Thu, 14 Sep 95 09:29 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 14 Sep 1995 06:27:57 EDT |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"Aauel3.0.0o8.Zm3Mm"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 14: |
48:25 1996 |
| X-Mailer: |
PRODIGY Services Company Internet mailer [PIM 3.2-342.56] |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
-- [ From: Doug Jeffery * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --
On 9/8/95 Karl Sauter Wrote:
>Does there remain any reason to have thermal reliefs on vias (ie:
drilled hole size less than 0.016" diameter) ?
Karl,
We see between 10 and 30 new designs a week come in and I estimate that
30 to 40% of those do not have thermal relief on the via sizes. This
design is being used by my customers and I have not hear any negative
feed back.
I have not seen this used on technologies using more than 2 power and
ground planes, although I don't know why it would not apply there also.
Doug Jeffery
Electrotek
|
|
|
