 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:44:59 -0500 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| X-Sender: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vJ6UU-0000UtC; Thu, 31 Oct 96 17:25 CST |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"B5pf_1.0.w5D.fLJUo"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Mon Nov 4 09: |
45:18 1996 |
| Cc: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Does anyone have experience and/or reliability data to support the
requirements for the minimum conductor width due to hole breakout called out
in IPC-RB-276 for class 2 product? The requirement calls for 80% of the
connection to be intact. If we totally drill out an external land to trace
connection (0% connected?) then "reconnect" it with the plated copper will
it at all be reliable? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
-Gregg
_________________________________________________________
Gregg Klawson tel: +1.508.880.1822
GTE Government Systems Corp fax: +1.508.880.4891
Taunton, Massachusetts USA email: [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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
