DESIGNERCOUNCIL Archives

1996

DesignerCouncil@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 ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0uGikB-00008hC; Tue, 7 May 96 04:07 CDT
Old-Return-Path:
Date:
Tue, 7 May 96 08:53:45 GMT
Precedence:
list
Reply-To:
Cc:
tron.tkof@ifaistos
X-Status:
Status:
O
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/1672
From [log in to unmask] Wed May 15 16:
27:08 1996
TO:
Return-Path:
<DesignerCouncil-request>
X-Loop:
Resent-Message-ID:
<"VXCx31.0.iYA.UBnZn"@ipc>
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Theodore Alimissis)
Resent-From:
Resent-Sender:
DesignerCouncil-request [log in to unmask]
X-Mailer:
SelectMAIL 1.1
Message-Id:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)

Recently our department was asked to design a board that included LCC cases among which some LCC-20s . As we had no previous experience ,we refered to IPC-SM-782 Rev.A where we were pleased to locate the geometric characteristics of the component in section 12.3 page 2 and the relevant proposed land pattern under RLP code 831. 

When we tried to make a model in our CAD system we realized that if we used the data of the IPC standard the clearance between pins 3 and 4 would be 0.22 mm and this could be achieved only if we used the shaded LMC values as design values ( which in our opinion is not right ).

               3 
               = = = = = 
           4 =           =
             =           =
             =           =
             =           =  
             =           =
               = = = = =

Do we interpret the data in a wrong way ? Is there any newer revision to IPC-SM-782 ? Has anyone used efficiently other land patterns for LCCs ?

Theodore Alimissis
CAD Department Manager
Intracom SA , Greece
e-mail : [log in to unmask]
 



ATOM RSS1 RSS2