 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tf7Uv-0000PFC; Wed, 24 Jan 96 09:52 CST |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Wed, 24 Jan 1996 09:58:37 -0600 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Tue Jan 30 10: |
33:19 1996 |
| Cc: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| X-Sender: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"xtYyj3.0.t2B.zMb1n"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Message-Id: |
<ad2c05600102100402fb@[157.175.110.24]> |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Terry Davey asked:
>Does anyone out there have experience/knowledge of mating gold-plate edge
>contacts (on SIMMS - so dry contacts) with tinned connectors. Is it a no-no
>from a long-term reliability point of view?
Dissimilar metals is a no-no, and you would have a Galvanic couple with
both tin and lead much more anodic. In the presence of humidity you would
certainly see high resistance develop.
>We have a first source with tinned edge contacts (matching the connector) and
>are lokking at a gold-plate second source.
Tin-lead to tin-lead (with latching and sufficiently high contact normal
forces) would be more reliable than using dissimilar metals. Gold-gold is
yet more reliable over the long term.
There is an article on the AMP web page about this, I think - try
http://www.amp.com/
regards,
Jerry Cupples
Interphase Corporation
Dallas, TX
http://www.iphase.com
|
|
|
