TECHNET Archives

January 2019

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:
Douglas Pauls <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:41:54 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
It depends Jack.  If you need the full clearance of the holes for the
mounting and conformal coat would interfere with the mating, then you would
specify the unplated hole as a keepout zone and the clearance would depend
on your hardware.

On the other hand, every keepout you put on the board increases the
difficulty and cost of manufacturing.

*Douglas Pauls *| Principal Materials and Process Engr | Advanced
Operations Engineering

*COLLINS AEROSPACE*

400 Collins Road NE, MS 108-101, Cedar Rapids, IA  52498  USA

*Tel:* +1 319 295 2109 | *Mobile: *+1 319 431 3773

[log in to unmask]


On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:37 PM Jack Olson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Is it more common to conformal coat unplated mounting holes?
> or designate a clearance diameter on the assembly drawing?
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2