TECHNET Archives

August 2001

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:
Kathy Kuhlow <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:53:26 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (501 bytes) , TEXT.htm (849 bytes)
I would definitely use the gold finish if you have fine pitch devices.  This finish is a lot smoother and will cause less defects through surface mount.  I haven't seen or read any reliability reports were the length of life is any different between the two.  As for solderability it is just as good if not better.  It is also easier to inspect since the gold is a different color paste screening defects are easier to see and insufficient solder is also easier to detect after reflow.  

Kathy 



<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT: 10pt Haettenschweiler; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px; MARGIN-TOP: 2px"> <DIV>I would definitely use the gold finish if you have fine pitch devices.&nbsp; This finish is a lot smoother and will cause less defects through surface mount.&nbsp; I haven't seen&nbsp;or read any reliability reports were the length of life is any different between the two.&nbsp; As for solderability it is just as good if not better.&nbsp; It is also easier to inspect since the gold is a different color paste screening defects are easier to see and insufficient solder is also easier to detect after reflow.&nbsp; </DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Kathy </DIV></BODY></HTML>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2