TECHNET Archives

April 2006

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:
Brian Guidi <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Date:
Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:30:34 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Phil,

Yes, we have kept the customer in the loop regarding the product in

question. The outcome should be favorable to both. I spoke with Frank

Kimmey and we agree that in the absence of a specified value, it may be in

the best interest of the fabricator to ask the question. A loose

interpretation could also be made if a specific impedance requirement is

invoked at the drawing level. If it is necessary to use one ply to achieve

the desired value, you are arguably compliant.



We've historically defaulted to a design rule of 2 ply's minimum (one 1080

& one 106), and will continue to use this standard. Although there may be

cases where there are exceptions to this due to overall thickness and/or

impedance requirements.



Thank you for your input.



Brian Guidi.











                                                                           

             Phil Nutting                                                  

             <PNutting@KAISERS                                             

             YSTEMS.COM>                                                To 

             Sent by: TechNet          [log in to unmask]                     

             <[log in to unmask]>                                          cc 

                                                                           

                                                                   Subject 

             04/20/2006 11:13          Re: [TN] Dielectric Thickness       

             AM                        Requirements                        

                                                                           

                                                                           

             Please respond to                                             

              TechNet E-Mail                                               

                   Forum                                                   

             <[log in to unmask]>                                             

             ; Please respond                                              

                    to                                                     

               Phil Nutting                                                

             <PNutting@KAISERS                                             

                YSTEMS.COM>                                                

                                                                           

                                                                           









Brian,



Clearly you have done your due diligence... And then some.



Have you called the customer for the requirement?  If they state a

standard and don't do their homework, like the procuring document, then

shame on them.



Just my opinion.



Phil



-----Original Message-----

From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Guidi

Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:59 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: [TN] Dielectric Thickness Requirements





I'm looking for some guidance with regards to dielectric thickness

requirements. We are currently fabricating boards for a customer in

which

IPC-6013 is invoked on the drawing. Within IPC-6013A you will find the

following:



"3.7.15 Dielectric Thickness: The minimum dielectric spacing shall be

specified on the procurement documentation."



Well, that's pretty clear. However, it is not on the procurement

documentation, and it very rarely is. Since IPC-600 is invoked within

IPC-6013 as a sub-tier acceptability document, I figured I'd head down

that

road. IPC-600G specifies the following:



"3.1.8 Acceptable - Class 1, 2, 3: The minimum dielectric thickness

meets

the minimum requirements of the procurement documentation. If not

specified, must be 0.09 mm [0.0035 in] or greater."



Okay, so as a result of this statement one may interpret this as the

controlling requirement (0.0035" in this particular case). Unless of

course

you head back to IPC-6013 which states the following in section 2:



"2 Applicable Documents: The following specifications form a part of

this

specification to the extent specified herein. If a conflict of

requirements

exists between IPC-6013 and the listed applicable documents, IPC-6013

shall

take precedence.



So at this point, I'm right back to where I started. There is no defined

dielectric thickness specified on the procurement documentation.

Additionally, the cross sectional view on the drawing does not define

the

number of ply's between layers. This is obviously desirable for the

manufacturer to ensure they/we have the freedom to develop the

construction

based on a balance between the customers needs and the manufacturing

"sweet

spot". However from a compliance stand point, I'm in a quandary. If I

had a

multilayer construction with a single ply of 1080 prepreg between two

1/2

ounce layers (one signal, one ground), would the resulting board comply

to

the spec? In looking for further clarification, I deferred to IPC-6012B,

IPC-2222 and IPC-2221A and found the following:



IPC-6012B = .0035" minimum

IPC-2222 = .0035" minimum

IPC-2221A = Shall be specified on procurement documentation



I hope the use of direct quotes is acceptable here. It's the only way

for

me to really characterize my problem. Has anyone out there come across

this

issue? I've searched the archives, and similar issues have not been

discussed (as far as I can see) since 96'/97'.



Brian Guidi

R&D/Quality Systems Specialist

Teledyne Printed Circuit Technology

Tel: (603) 889-6191  X:310

Fax: (603) 886-2977

E-mail: [log in to unmask]



Visit us @ http://www.tetpct.com



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

Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e

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 or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to

[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)

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/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16

for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or

847-615-7100 ext.2815

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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2