TECHNET Archives

December 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:
Lum Wee Mei <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Lum Wee Mei <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:52:06 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
Dear All,
Under IPC-A-620A Section 9.1 Hardware Mounting Jackpost height, it is stated that for defect, the jackpost face extends above the connector face or greater than 0.75mm below the connector face. For acceptable, the jackpost face is flush to 0.75mm below the face of the connector. I guess the requirement stated in this section give the best assurance of maximum connector pin contact.

If this is the requirement, I am puzzled why I am seeing jackpost with its face extended slightly beyond the connector face in those COTS modules. Because of this observation, we are seeing another alternative requirements for the DSUB connectors. This lead to debate whether in-house build modules with D-SUB connectors and jackpost should follow what is practice in those COTS modules or stick to IPC-A-620 Section 9.1.

Hope to hear some feedback from your experiences.

Thanks and regards,
~wee mei~


DSO 40th Anniversary - Celebrating 40 years of Serious Fun. 1972 - 2012

______________________________________________________________________
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