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: |
|
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: |
|
|
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IPC, I feel that it is very outdated (1988?).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relying on a seemingly outdated document.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]
|
|
|