 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tr5Ae-0000CAC; Mon, 26 Feb 96 09:49 CST |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Feb 96 07:55:30 PST |
| Precedence: |
list |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"UKlsU.0.HOD.lPTCn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Mon Feb 26 14: |
22:29 1996 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Another option that works quite well is using clear (unpigmented)
soldermask and covering the fiducials with the soldermask.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Exposed Copper on Assemblies
Author: [log in to unmask] at corp
Date: 2/26/96 7:48 AM
Reflowing solder paste on fiducials and in-circuit test pads shouldn't cause
any problems. We've been performing ICT on assemblies with solder on the test
pads for years. I can't speak for all, but I know that the majority of
component placement systems can read solder coated fiducials quite well.
Jim Marsico
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|
