TECHNET Archives

April 2018

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:
David Hillman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, David Hillman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 19 Apr 2018 09:42:28 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
Hi Wayne - etchback isn't necessary for acceptable PTH reliability for some
products and product use environments so that may not be a contributing
issue. With that being said, I like etchback as it always makes the inner
connections better/more robust and in some product use environments having
etchback is necessary for long term product life. One question we haven't
asked as a group is " was etchback required in the fabrication
requirements?"

Dave

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Wayne Showers <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

> The real problem is that this PCB has no etchback, positive or negative
> (PCBs are defective).  As far as resin recession, yes the processing
> probably caused the separation, but once again, the PCB has no etchback.
>
> I would send that cross-section image to the PCB supplier and asked them
> if this is typical.  I suspect that they will realize it is a trap and
> either offer a crazy answer or admit that their is no etchback and offer to
> re-run/replace the PCBs.
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2