TECHNET Archives

May 2002

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:
Nancy Trumbull <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Fri, 10 May 2002 14:56:07 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (68 lines)
Steve

  As much as I like your understanding I would like to add the following as my input.
I do not see that the 6.3.1 is in conflict with Table 6-2
But may have been better understood if added as item F. With  the understanding that it only applies to thermal planes or conductor planes that act as heat sinks.
Please remember 6.3.1 is an exception to table 6-2 not in a conflict with . 
I really need to go fishing.
Why Why Why do people need to work for a living.
Sorry time to go home no time for a spell check
Good Bye again Nancy T.


>>> [log in to unmask] 05/10/02 07:53AM >>>
Good Morning Carl,
For starters I would like to say, "Good question, this is going to spread
hysteria throughout Technet land!"  This reminds me of the good 'ol days
providing clarifications and interpretations of mil specs/std that was
somewhat entertaining.
IMHO -- you are correct in your interpretation that the noted exception on
page 6-7 applices to class 2 & 3 (also note that this page conflicts with
table 6-2 Class 2 that states that 75% hole fill is required while 6-7
states 50% is acceptable).  BUT, the user must ensure that this is
acceptable for the intended use environment and all the 'ilities are
unaffected.  I would much rather accept 50% hole fill any day than to
perform touch-up -- oh the joint looks better now, but seriously let's look
at what damage has been done to innerlayer interconnections (oh, we can't
see that so it must be okay).
Have a nice day!

Steve Sauer
Northrop Grumman, Xetron

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: [TN] PTH Vertical Fill Requirement IPC610 Rev. C


                Hello,

Looking for the groups opinion(s) on the vertical fill requirement stated on
page 6-7 of IPC-A-610C.

Is the exception pertaining to the Defect Class 3?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2