Great question!
We have wasted SO much time designing custom libraries
for specific vendors, its to the point of being ridiculous.

Here is what I would do if I was starting over:
- Design to IPC unless I had a GOOD reason not to.
- NEVER use a component data sheet. can't trust 'em.
- If a vendor had a reason supported by SCIENTIFIC
  DATA to suggest a change, DOCUMENT IT!

The ideal (in my opinion) would be to say "All footprints
conform to IPC with the exception of..." and for those
exceptions explain WHY YOU CHANGED IT. (including
high density versions, wave solder alternates, whatever)

best wishes,
Jack

-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Moon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 2:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] IPC SMT FOOTPRINT DESIGN GUIDLINES VS SUPPLIERS


Folks,

Just a simple question really. How many folks use IPC SMT footprint
guidelines compared with supplier recommendations? There often is quite a
difference. As everyone on this planet uses IPC acceptance criteria, why
shouln't everyone use IPC design guidelines but for component supplier
liability issues?

MoonMan

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------