Carl,

  We suggest customer send us 1:1 apertures to pads. We then apply the
following logic:

  www.kondner.com/files/Stencil_Processing.pdf

The logic for the 5 dot idea is:

  www.kondner.com/files/Stencil_5_Dot_Math.pdf

 This leaves a big much paste for the larger parts but it works well for
smaller parts and Type 3 paste. The extra on big parts is typically not an
issue, it is getting the smaller pitch parts right that counts. 

 When you run 10 to 20 different customer jobs a day you can spend too much
time on each setup. These rules worked fairly well.

Bob K.


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carl Ray
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] Poll on Aperture Design

Hi All,
I have a real simple question for the group. We are in the process of
reviewing aperture designs and the impact on SPI, AOI and test yields. How
many of you have standard design guidelines and as part of the guidelines
have a standard reduction for all components? Put simply is there anyone who
using 1:1 for every aperture and every stencil as a standard? If not what is
the most common aperture reduction? Given that we all know some components
require aperture modification. My questions are more for a general or
standard process and components.


Carl Ray
Manufacturing Engineer

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________