TECHNET Archives

January 2013

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:
Jack Olson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Jack Olson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:36:54 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
True, but I can't help but wonder if I'm missing something...
Of all the issues that the IPC committees have discussed over the last few DECADES, 
why can't I find anything about mounting structures to component clearance?

hmmm...  dar's gotta be sumpn 'bout dat!

thanks anyway,
Jack

.
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:16:27 +0000, Wayne Thayer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>If it is a new QFP with the pure copper/very high copper leads then I wouldn't worry about it.  Those leads are so compliant they can absorb amazing amounts of stress.
>
>Wayne Thayer
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack Olson
>Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:36 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [TN] Mounting Hardware to QFP Component Lead
>
>To the assembly professionals out there:
>
>Have you ever had reliability issues with mounting screws if they are near a Quad Flat-Pack? My 144 pin land pattern is pretty close (100mils) but we are mounting the board into a very flat structure (no bowing) I can't imagine the compression of the board material could affect gull-wing style lead connections (maybe BGA?) but I don't know...
>
>thanks,
>Jack
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2