TECHNET Archives

1996

TechNet@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 m0uPBDA-0000CaC; Thu, 30 May 96 12:08 CDT
From [log in to unmask] Wed Jun 5 16:
08:01 1996
Old-Return-Path:
Date:
Thu, 30 May 1996 13:14:07 +0500
Precedence:
list
Resent-From:
Resent-Sender:
TechNet-request [log in to unmask]
X-Status:
Status:
O
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/4434
Content-Length:
675
TO:
Return-Path:
<TechNet-request>
Resent-Message-ID:
<"rGpqN3.0.90F.COThn"@ipc>
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (William Hunt-Program Eng.)
X-Loop:
Message-Id:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines)
I am looking for placement restrictions for a double sided reflow board. What  
 co                                                                             
 mponents can and can not be placed on the bottom side. Our concern is the      
 larger                                                                         
  (heavier) components might fall off during the second pass thru the oven.     
 Other                                                                          
  than chips and small SO packages we have little experience.  New and smaller  
 designs are pushing us toward larger components on the bottom side. Any and    
 all comments welcome.     



ATOM RSS1 RSS2