TECHNET Archives

September 2012

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:
Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:27:07 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
Hey, I'm on vacation.

I just found the email. 

I find that open PTH are generally more reliable than filled PTHs. That
does not mean that you should have opens from filled PTHs after
assembly. Mostly filled vias tend to be very robust. If you test until
failure I expect the filled via would fail sooner than the open vias. 

What we need is a microsection.

Sincerely,  

 

Paul Reid 

Program Coordinator  

PWB Interconnect Solutions Inc. 
235 Stafford Rd., West, Unit 103 
Nepean, Ontario Canada, K2H 9C1 

613 596 4244 ext. 229  

Skype paul_reid_pwb 
[log in to unmask] 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julie Silk
Sent: September 17, 2012 1:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Broken Vias

Where's Paul Reid?  He made a comment in a seminar that he sees a higher
failure rate for filled/plated over vias than for open ones.  I agree
that your exact fill material and characteristics are needed.  While
this process is well-known, the fill and the wrap are significant
variables.  Good selection for the fill, good process control for the
wrap.  And look at what heat has been applied.  Any rework?  For these
parts or nearby?

______________________________________________________________________
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] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2