IPC-600-6012 Archives

August 2010

IPC-600-6012@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:
Chris Mahanna <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
(Combined Forum of D-33a and 7-31a Subcommittees)
Date:
Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:17:47 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (71 lines)
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] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2