agreed.

Joey Rios
PWB & Process Quality Eng'r
Endicott Interconnect Technologies
1093 Clark St.
Endicott, NY 13760
Office: 607-755-5896



"Gandhi, Mahendra S (AS)" <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: IPC-600-6012 <[log in to unmask]>
12/09/2009 09:33 PM
Please respond to
"(Combined Forum of D-33a and 7-31a Subcommittees)" <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: [IPC-600-6012] FAB: Acceptability of Haloing






That is why many companies still have to write their specifications...3
diopter

Mahendra

-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jose A
Rios
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 6:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] FAB: Acceptability of Haloing

if using 2 mils as an example, i'm thinking right now that it may not
even 
be visible at 3 diopters.....
if so, not rejectable.
 
Joey Rios
PWB & Process Quality Eng'r
Endicott Interconnect Technologies
1093 Clark St.
Endicott, NY 13760
Office: 607-755-5896



"Gandhi, Mahendra S (AS)" <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: IPC-600-6012 <[log in to unmask]>
12/09/2009 06:55 PM
Please respond to
"(Combined Forum of D-33a and 7-31a Subcommittees)"
<[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: [IPC-600-6012] FAB: Acceptability of Haloing






All Haloing condition must be reviewed with electrical design activities
to make a decision of acceptance when it is over 50% from edge to
conductor.

Mahendra

-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack Olson
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [IPC-600-6012] FAB: Acceptability of Haloing

Fabricators,

This is an opportunity to influence the acceptability of your product!

The IPC Standards Development Committee is working on the next
revision to IPC-A-600 (Acceptability of Printed Boards) which is a
visual reference companion to IPC-6012.

One of the items we are currently discussing is the acceptability of
haloing along the board edge. Here is a link to where we stand now:

http://frontdoor.biz/PCBportal/IPC-A-600H213.jpg

The problem is, if the designer violates the recommendation in the
current IPC-2221 design guideline and puts traces or planes too close
to the board outline, with the current wording of "whichever is less"
your boards can be considered rejectable with even a very small
amount of haloing. Even intentional features like edge fingers can
make your boards rejectable.

We aren't sure if we should reword this (and if so, how?)

So the ball is in your court (because unless there is a logical
consensus
we probably won't change it).
I'll compile and submit any responses to the next committee meeting.

Jack (aka "the new guy")