well said dinosaur... look like we are similar vintage...
On Mar 5, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Jack Olson wrote:

> I must be behind-the-times on this one.
> Werner Englemaier used to talk about this all the time, and from my  
> memory an analogy might be similar to comparing a simple rivet to a  
> "rivet with ribs". If your goal is a robust product (which a lot of  
> Class 3's are) then it seems like you would want the extra support.  
> (I'm not making a statement, I'm repeating what I was taught). I'm  
> pretty sure I've heard Gary Ferrari recommend keeping them in at  
> least a half a dozen times in his seminars. Aren't the most common  
> failures in boards related to vias?
>
> Maybe I have more learnin' to do on this one, but I'm surprised  
> that NO ONE responded in favor of keeping the unconnected internal  
> pads
>
> Well, since we are talking about vias, I was also advised to  
> require 1mil hole wall plating, even though the standard is 0.8 (I  
> think). But for the same reason, the stronger we can make our vias,  
> the less "most common" failures we will have, right? (At  
> Caterpillar, we want the most robust product we can get for the  
> money) Am I sounding like an old dinosaur now?
>
> but really, is EVERYONE removing unconnected inner layer pads?
> Is "increasing the longevity of drill bits" the dominant theme now?
>
> onward thru the fog,
> Jack
>
>
> .
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:12:22 -0600, Larry <[log in to unmask]>  
> wrote:
>
>> Is there any reason I cannot remove non functioning pads on the  
>> inner layers for an Class 3 PCB?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Larry