Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0trps1-0000DXC; Wed, 28 Feb 96 11:40 CST |
Old-Return-Path: |
<simon.ipc.org!bort.mv.net!rapidcad!jseeger> |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Feb 96 12:40:11 EDT |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"NaGk01.0.ahG.fE9Dn"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
"Jeff Seeger" <simon.ipc.org!bort.mv.net!rapidcad!jseeger> |
From [log in to unmask] Wed Feb 28 15: |
49:01 1996 |
X-Loop: |
|
X-VMS-Mail-To: |
|
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Pat,
Good to hear your endorsement of the IPC land patterns. We have
found good acceptance of them in the general assembly community.
I'm always glad to hear of "paths to higher yield". Given your
testimonial I'd be curious to hear more specifically how you've
implemented the spec, though. In your interpretation of IPC 782
(I assume it's rev A), do you use the nominal values presented or
do you envelope broader tolerances? Perhaps you start with the
nominals and adjust for your process within the broader tolerances?
I have found this particular version to be a bit subject to the
user. Nominal values are aggressive compared to factory specific
specs that we also support, while the full envelope presented is
too conservative for complex products. Is your interpretation
part of your success?
Long live TechNet!
Jeff Seeger Applied CAD Knowlege Inc
Chief Technical Officer Tyngsboro MA 01879
[log in to unmask] 508 649 9800
|
|
|