 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tsAxw-00006fC; Thu, 29 Feb 96 10:12 CST |
| Encoding: |
13 TEXT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 29 Feb 96 10:16:00 CST |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"kslXm3.0.Jh9.h1TDn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Thu Feb 29 12: |
53:40 1996 |
| X-Loop: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Microsoft Mail V3.0 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I am working with a design that requires CTE management for solderjoint
fatigue of a leadless ceramic component, and I am considering random fiber
aramid pwb construction. The problem I have is that the solder side copper
heat sink modulus is almost 10X that of the pwb and the results of the
composite heat sink assembly is of little benefit of CTE the component sees.
Can anyone recommend a heat sink/pwb adhesive that is forgiving enough to
allow the expansion differences while still having good properties of
shear/peel strength and thermally conductive?
Thank You in Advance,
Kevin Thorson
|
|
|
