Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0ujT56-0000NoC; Thu, 25 Jul 96 11:16 CDT |
TO: |
|
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
Subject: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
TechNet-request |
From: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Thu Jul 25 13: |
18:03 1996 |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Jul 1996 07:20:48 -0400 |
X-Mailer: |
Novell GroupWise 4.1 |
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
cycles.
Resent-Message-ID: <"SsWlU.0.SrH.6tvzn"@ipc>
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/5327
X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Status: O
X-Status:
I would be most interested in any publications or experiences about
component degradation resulting from thru-hole components being
exposed to reflow temperatures after placing SMT parts. The natural
flow of an assembly line would be to place SMT components and then
insert thru-hole components. However, as a subcontractor, layout
designs don't always conform to manufacturability standards and due to
interference from bottom side SMT parts conflicting with insertion
machine anvils, being able to insert thru-hole parts, especially dips, and
then place bottom side SMT devices would be considerable.
I would also be interested in reviewing other methods about building
such layout designs without increasing hand placement labor.
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|