 
| Received: |
by ipchq.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0sTvf4-0000HIC; Thu, 6 Jul 95 13:28 CDT |
| Lines: |
25 |
| Old-Return-Path: |
<miso!cygnetuk.demon.co.uk!Peter> |
| Date: |
Thu, 06 Jul 1995 18:09:51 GMT |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"IkNTV2.0.ra6.2j2_l"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 14: |
21:22 1996 |
| Resent-From: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
PCElm 1.10 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
One of our customers has a query:
"I am adopting IPC standards in our company, especially in regard to pcb
flatness.
IPC 610 (para 8.3) gives 0.75% for populated surface mount boards.
IPC 600 (para 10.1) requires on average 1.5% with only 6 instances (T4 sized
boards) where flatness is better than 0.75% and this is for _non-populated_
boards.
I find this confusing - can you advise."
We note that IPC 600 says that flatness requirements stated may not meet
surface mount requirements. What will the new revision of 600 say?
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Peter Swanson, Oxfordshire, England
Dynamix Technology Ltd
[log in to unmask]
CompuServe: 100120,3641
If you tied buttered toast to the back of a cat and dropped it from a height,
what would happen?
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
|
|
|
