 
| Received: |
by ipchq.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0t5hG9-0000HTC; Wed, 18 Oct 95 17:46 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Wed, 18 Oct 95 18:29:11 EDT |
| Precedence: |
list |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 15: |
07:06 1996 |
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"Zqgc51.0.s38.FEOXm"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
From: Kelly Kovalovsky, PCB Quality Engineering
~ EMail:[log in to unmask]
Subject: PCB vs. Paste Stencil Comp
We have a fairly large circuit board that we are assembling. The card
has fine pitch SMT at extreme ends. We have noticed a mismatch between
the solder paste stencil and the printed circuit board. The circuit
board features are actually closer together than the stencil.
My question to any card assembly site is whether it is common practice
to compensate a solder paste stencil for shrinkage of a PCB?
IBM Microelectronics Division
6800 IBM Drive MG12/251
Charlotte, NC 28262-8563
|
|
|
