TECHNET Archives

1995

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Received:
by ipchq.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0sQfny-0000GnC; Tue, 27 Jun 95 13:56 CDT
Encoding:
856 Text
Old-Return-Path:
<miso!hadco.com!tcoyle>
Date:
Tue, 27 Jun 95 14:52:39 EST
Precedence:
list
Resent-From:
Resent-Sender:
X-Status:
Status:
O
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/624
TO:
Return-Path:
Resent-Message-ID:
<"wTSVg2.0.nMB.BH5yl"@ipc>
Subject:
From:
From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 14:
20:14 1996
X-Loop:
Message-Id:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (19 lines)
          Although I have read the Small Hole Reliability study by the
          IPC, I feel that it is very outdated (1988?).  In those
          days, board fabricators were on a learning curve for small
          holes.  Many process improvements have been put in place
          since then, including vibrators in the deposition baths to
          remove entrapped air bubbles.
          I stand by my earlier staement that removal of
          non-functional pads is much preferred by board houses.  As
          layers increase, the amount of copper drilled through can be
          as much as .016" - .018"!
          It is time for the IPC to do another study instead of
          relying on a seemingly outdated document.
          Tom Coyle
          Field Services Engineer
          HADCO Corporation
          [log in to unmask]



ATOM RSS1 RSS2