TECHNET Archives

February 1998

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text 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:
Steve Collins <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Mon, 23 Feb 1998 12:21:43 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Technetters:

I have been using the IPC guidelines for Radial & Axial part hole sizes for
some time now for non-auto-insertable parts. I was doing this because from
my way of thinking all parts are either radial or axial just not all are
auto-insertable. My question is, if I'm working to IPC-D-275 level B is it
safe to split the dimensions shown in table 5-15. What I mean is this table
calls out for "No greater than 0.7 mm (0.028) over minimum lead diameter"
and " No less than 0.20 mm (0.008) over maximum lead diameter." Since there
is a .020 difference from min to max I would like to split this and use
.010 plus the min .008  for .018 over nominal lead diameter for these types
of parts. Does this thinking justify itself for most applications.

Steve Collins
Antec Corporation

################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TechNet 
################################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://jefry.ipc.org/forum.htm) for additional information.
For the technical support contact Dmitriy Sklyar at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.311
################################################################


ATOM RSS1 RSS2