TECHNET Archives

1996

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Received:
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0tzv9s-00006dC; Thu, 21 Mar 96 18:56 CST
Encoding:
12 TEXT
From [log in to unmask] Fri Mar 22 11:
01:42 1996
Date:
Thu, 21 Mar 96 20:01:00 EST
Precedence:
list
Resent-From:
Message-ID:
X-Status:
Status:
O
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/3101
TO:
"'IPC Technet Input'" <[log in to unmask]>
Return-Path:
<TechNet-request>
Resent-Message-ID:
<"ShJAs.0.eQC.GhVKn"@ipc>
Subject:
From:
"Dill, Norm J" <[log in to unmask]>
Old-Return-Path:
X-Loop:
X-Mailer:
Microsoft Mail V3.0
Resent-Sender:
TechNet-request [log in to unmask]
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)

     We have a standard 44 pin E-prom with "J" leads on a board that is 
placed in a test fixture using gold pins and nylon standoffs for pressure 
points.  Because of the component layout, the pressure points (nylon 
standoffs) on top are not directly in line with the clusters of test pins on 
the bottom.  Occasionally, some of the "J" lead connections of one 
particular E-prom will shear off the board taking with it the majority of 
the solder that was on the pad.  The remaining pad has a thin coating of 
solder with a grain like texture.
      What are the guide lines for determining if the problem is poor shear 
strength of the solder at the pad surface or just plain mechanical abuse by 
the test fixture?



ATOM RSS1 RSS2