 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0ugesL-0000CmC; Wed, 17 Jul 96 17:15 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jul 1996 18:24:32 -0400 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"YFafb3.0.H98.uNMxn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Fri Jul 19 17: |
14:08 1996 |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Lifted lands!!!!:
Those who do not like the lifted land criteria in IPC-RB-276 will probablay
not like the requirement in IPC-6012 (interim final) which allows lifted
lands if not visually seen in the unstressed board inspection. We can find
many reasons why lifted lands are not desirable ( i.e. possible entrapped
fluxes, loosened holes. cracked knees etc, but for product function, I have
never seen a functional failure resulting from lifted lands. We allow
breakouts, 0.002 inch annular ring and the processing solutions to be in
contact with the bare-hole wall for an hour or so l during
desmear/electroless process; these could all result in the same condition
that may result from a lifted land. I feel, as do many others, that lifted
lands are process indicator or a cosmetic defect and not related to the
performance of the board.
Phil Hinton
[log in to unmask]
***************************************************************************
* TechNet 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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
