At 01:11 PM 2/28/96 -0600, Pat McGuine wrote:
>We always design using the Maximum Material Conditions (MMC).  In doing so,
>I can just use the values of X, Y and C specified.  One note of caution,
>always check that the mechanical dimensions specified by the supplier match
>those that the land pattern was developed around.
>
>At 12:40 2/28/96 EDT, Jeff Seeger wrote:
>>
>>
>>	Pat,
>>
>>	Good to hear your endorsement of the IPC land patterns.  We have
>>	found good acceptance of them in the general assembly community.
>>
>>	I'm always glad to hear of "paths to higher yield".  Given your
>>	testimonial I'd be curious to hear more specifically how you've
>>	implemented the spec, though.  In your interpretation of IPC 782
>>	(I assume it's rev A), do you use the nominal values presented or
>>	do you envelope broader tolerances?  Perhaps you start with the
>>	nominals and adjust for your process within the broader tolerances?
>>
>>	I have found this particular version to be a bit subject to the
>>	user.  Nominal values are aggressive compared to factory specific
>>	specs that we also support, while the full envelope presented is
>>	too conservative for complex products.  Is your interpretation
>>	part of your success?
>>
>>	Long live TechNet!
>>
>>	Jeff Seeger				Applied CAD Knowlege Inc
>>	Chief Technical Officer			      Tyngsboro MA 01879
>>	[log in to unmask]				    508 649 9800
>>
>>
>>
>
>-Pat-
>
>-------------
>Patrick McGuine
>Nicolet Instrument
>[log in to unmask]
>(608) 276-6334
>
>
Pat;

It is always good to hear the success stories from those that appreciate the
standardization efforts. An additional point, is that the component
dimensions shown in the standard come from the released EIA, EIAJ and JEDEC
standards, for those components. All to often, component manufacturers state
that the component meets the specification, when in reality, it doesn't.
Good advise on watching the components!

Regards,

Gary Ferrari
Tech Circuits
[log in to unmask]