 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vLuZp-0000VPC; Fri, 8 Nov 96 11:18 CST |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:27:38 -0500 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Fri Nov 8 13: |
22:19 1996 |
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"NakN92.0.R7O.pjsWo"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I can not help you with the history of the changes allowing solder in the
upper bend on gull wing leads in J-STD-001B (paragraph 9.2.6.1, Figure 9-4,
Note 1) and MIL-STD-2000A (paragraph 4.23.7.5).
However, technically this change makes sense. Gullwing leads, particularly in
fine pitch, have ample lead compliancy to accommodate the small thermal
expansion mismatches between a PLCC and FR-4 substrate. Thus, the small loss
of lead compliancy due to the solder (solder has a low modulus of elasticity
that is even lower at elevated temperatures) in the shoulder bend has for no
practical consequence. However, to my knowledge nobody has ever
experimentally verified this--this test would be very time consuming.
The above would not be true, if the component is a CLCC.
Werner Engelmaier
Engelmaier Associates, Inc.
Electronic Packaging, Interconnection and Reliability Consulting
23 Gunther Street
Mendham, NJ 07945
Phone & Fax: 201-543-2747
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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
