Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0v3Qio-0000QiC; Wed, 18 Sep 96 12:47 CDT |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 18 Sep 96 10:34:50 PDT |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<DesignerCouncil-request> |
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"DArfn1.0.LK6.vM3Go"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Wed Sep 18 14: |
45:44 1996 |
X-Loop: |
|
From: |
|
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Max,
We also are sensitive to EMI problems and are aware of the problems
caused by excessive anti-pad sizes, namely reducing the integrity
of the ground and power planes.
There is a IPC spec concerning
clearance area in planes in IPC-D-275 section 5.3.2.4.
According to this spec, there is a .010" minimum clearance between
the edge of the land and the plane. A fabrication allowance should
be added to this also. For us, we use a .035" via pad with a .018"
finished drill size. If we were to follow this spec, we should have a
.020" clearance using the Level C fabrication allowance. This would
translate to a anti-pad of .075", (pad size + .040" for .020" clearance).
Having said this, we don't follow the spec. We use a much smaller anti-pad, .055"
which gives us a .010" clearance. I have asked our board fabricators about
this reduced clearance and they told me this is not a problem.
Hope this helps.
Danny Gross
PCB Designer
E-Mu Systems, Inc.
Scotts Valley, CA
****************************************************************************
* The mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
****************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
****************************************************************************
|
|
|