Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 23 Jul 96 7:52:43 PDT |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Tue Jul 23 14: |
32:09 1996 |
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
X-Status: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"RNSYF2.0.ZKE.h8Fzn"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
X-Loop: |
|
Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uijYS-0000NDC; Tue, 23 Jul 96 10:39 CDT |
X-Priority: |
3 (Normal) |
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Just curious:
We often have customers requesting that the (LPI) soldermask be
screened/floodcoated to plug vias with soldermask. I understand the
reasons behind the design; however, I'm concerned about potential
contaminates being trapped in the via, especially from the HAL or assembly
process. This soldermask process can produce vias that are partially to
fully plugged from one (or both) sides of the PCB. This can cause
inadequate rinsing and cleaning of the vias during the HAL or assembly
process.
Any other ideas or concerns? Has anyone looked at this issue in detail?
(This soldermask process can also produce exposed copper in the via, which
has been discussed on this forum. I believe the OSP surface finish would
be a much safer choice with this via/soldermask design).
Thanks,
Dave Boggs
Merix Corporation
E-mail: [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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|