 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0usWTj-0000MqC; Mon, 19 Aug 96 10:42 CDT |
| Encoding: |
10 TEXT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 19 Aug 96 10:45:00 PDT |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Mon Aug 19 14: |
07:05 1996 |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"RyGUA1.0.WS6.2k86o"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Loop: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Microsoft Mail V3.0 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
A subcontractor of ours has asked for solder thieves to be added to SOICs
that are placed on the solderside of our products. Others have maintained
that, if the process is in control, these are not needed.
Can someone offer data (no opinions, please) that show that these extra
pad extensions are worth the extra real estate and pain to design
(orientation, etc)? Does this really offer a wider process window or is it
a crutch for poor processes?
Thanx in advance.
***************************************************************************
* 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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
