Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 29 Feb 96 17:34:31 gmt |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
X-Sender: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
|
X-Loop: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"tNxN.0.C39.VJVDn"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Thu Feb 29 12: |
57:03 1996 |
Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tsDOX-000071C; Thu, 29 Feb 96 12:48 CST |
X-Mailer: |
Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 |
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Kevin,
Have you considered a different heatsink material e.g. SiC reinforced Al?
You could match its TCE to the ceramic and perhaps revert to a standard
PCB material.
David Whalley
>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
|
|
|