TECHNET Archives

February 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:
"Stadem, Richard D" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Stadem, Richard D
Date:
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:45:52 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
For soldered BGA dog-bone pads, that is a major issue, common within the industry. If the soldermask strip between the via and the BGA pad is too small, there is not enough adhesion and the molten solder runs right under the soldermask strip down into the via hole. Too thin of a strip of soldermask allows solder thieving from the solder ball. But for unsoldered vias not connected to a soldered pad on the opposite side, I cannot imagine what issues there would be. Soldermask is not considered an electrical insulator, so if a designer was depending on a thin sliver of mask to provide insulation between two vias of different potential, shame on them.



-----Original Message-----

From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack Olson

Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:58 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: [TN] soldermask silvers



In my experience, what a PCB fabricator would consider a sliver would be

the strip of soldermask material between RECTANGULAR pads being less than a

minimum width.

We got a "DFM report" for a board where minimum distance between ROUND vias

is being reported as slivers.Has anyone ever heard of problems with minimum

mask material between round, unsoldered vias?

I can't imagine any real-world problems that could cause, but I have an

open mind...


ATOM RSS1 RSS2