 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uvlWC-0000PuC; Wed, 28 Aug 96 09:22 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Wed, 28 Aug 1996 07:27:13 -0700 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"87LPw1.0.VSG._O59o"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Wed Aug 28 09: |
42:05 1996 |
| X-Mailer: |
Novell GroupWise 4.1 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
We are a manufacturer of solder masks. It is generally agreed that a
matte solder mask will have less solder balls with no clean fluxes. A
matte surface solder mask is also easier for inspection purposes.
>>> Barry Allen <[log in to unmask]> 08/27/96 05:51pm >>>
Greetings!
We are relatively new to the SMT assembly business. Our vendor
wants to switch from a glossy to a matte surface soldermask to
eliminate a process problem on their end. Are there any issues we
need to consider? I seem to recall a discussion about solder balls hating
matte finish.
Thanks
Barry Allen
SED Systems Inc.
[log in to unmask]
***************************************************************************
* 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.
*
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
* 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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
