Thanks Mahendra.
Cool. I've got to get some of my conflicts cleared (or as my wife says - focus) so I can make it over to 6018. I think in Vegas I had 3 meetings at that time.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gandhi, Mahendra S (AS)
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] EXTERNAL:Re: [IPC-600-6012] Class 3/A requirements
Chris,
6018 (final draft) that is in circulation for comment does have class
3/A. FYI.
Mahendra
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris
Mahanna
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EXTERNAL:Re: [IPC-600-6012] Class 3/A requirements
Wendi,
Agreed. We run across this often when larger HWP requirements are on
the drawing.
IMO this was addressed when we moved from explicitly stating 1/2 could
be removed to a hard minimum dimension for class 2 and 3.
Then class 3/A is strictly intended as a list of supplants to class 3.
If it isn't listed, class 3 applies.
This is certainly a weakness in the 3/A implementation. However, TAEC
sure isn't going to let us have an "official" fourth class.
The silver lining is that 3/A doesn't have to address new issues at the
same cadence as 6012 proper, assuming we are happy with the class 3
requirements.
All of that said, it is a little counterintuitive, as HWP has decades of
history of applying to surface and hole.
One interesting legality of the rev C 3/A is that more 3/A product is
moving to HDI, Flex/Rigid and "Microwave". In which case, there is a
tendency to leave the old screwy contracts in place, as 6013,16,18 don't
have 3/A.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary
Ferrari
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Class 3/A requirements
Wendy,
I'm in agreement with all. The wording, as such, implies the PTH wall.
This is the way I've interpreted it for 3/A programs.
Regards,
Gary
On 8/17/2010 5:07 PM, Wendi Boger wrote:
> I need some clarification on the requirement for Plating/Coating
> Thickness. The 3/A page requires additional copper thickness above
> class 3 to be added to tables 3-3, 3-4 and 3-5. Does this also apply
to
> the minimum wrap thickness? (Example) Is it required for a
> non-conductive filled through via to have .944 mils of wrap (table
3-3)?
> It's a bit confusing as it says to apply to minimum copper average and
> minimum thin areas.
>
>
>
> Wendi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This communication is for use by the intended recipient(s) only and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. You are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding or copying hereof is
strictly prohibited without the express written consent of DDi. If you
have received this communication in error or are not the intended
recipient, you should destroy the message and any attachments or copies,
and you are prohibited from retaining, distributing, disclosing, or
using any information contained herein. Please inform us of the
erroneous delivery by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
