TECHNET Archives

April 2002

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:
"Dan R. Johnson" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Wed, 10 Apr 2002 07:22:15 -0700
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2139 bytes) , text/html (3420 bytes)
Steve,
I use round pads to decrease pad size (increase circuit density). A side benefit seems to be less chance of skew, I don't have numbers on tombstoning/drawbridging, but product hasn't yelled. I have also been tinkering with the idea of other geometries just haven't come across the right application yet.
Dan
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: [log in to unmask]
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [TN] 0402 tombstone problem


  I just heard something not too long ago, that round pads for 0402's are the way to go.

  Never heard of that before, but just recently received a board for quote that uses round pads for the 0402 components...anybody else ever heard of this?

  Guess I'll find out how it works inna little while, while pondering why a round pad would work better than a square pad....

  -Steve Gregory-



    Edward,

    When we do everything correct on 0402 and 0201 and still have components
    standing-up, we often look to the component terminations and find poor
    plating.

    Good luck
    Dave Fish

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Edward S. Wheeler" <[log in to unmask]>
    To: <[log in to unmask]>
    Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:59 AM
    Subject: [TN] 0402 tombstone problem


    > Hi folks, we are running a new board with 0402 parts on it. It seems that
    > we are having a tombstone problem as well as a problem with parts not
    > staying centered on the pads. We are currently using 20 mil square pads on
    > the board, with 20 mils of spacing between them. Our stencil is 6 mils
    > thick, laser cut and electro polished. The trapezoidal walled apertures
    are
    > slightly reduced, 17 mils square, and centered on the pads. It appears the
    > chip shooter is placing the parts perfectly. We are using eutectic solder
    > paste with an OA flux, and reflowing the parts using the recommended
    profile.
    >
    > Are there any suggestions any of you might have concerning this size of a
    > part? Is there a better stencil design, reflow profile, or pad design that
    > could help us out? I would appreciate any suggestions.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > Ed






ATOM RSS1 RSS2