Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tw8Ll-00006VC; Mon, 11 Mar 96 08:13 CST |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 11 Mar 1996 07:57:20 -0600 |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Mon Mar 11 17: |
42:48 1996 |
X-Status: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"0PrJZ1.0.LzA.4K3Hn"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
X-Loop: |
|
Return-Path: |
|
X-Mailer: |
Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hello,
We are a manufacturer of PWB's for the commercial market. We have recently
received a request from one of our customers to modify a LPI soldermask
design to minimize or hopefully eliminate solder bridging at wave solder.
Details of the original design are as follows:
Drilled hole diameter: .0145"
Pad diameter : .0280"
Soldermask clearance : .0210"
Our customer has requested that we reduce the clearance so that the entire
pad is covered with mask material. Our concern is that the result of typical
processing will allow mask material to become exposed within the drilled
holes and remain after all processing is complete. Further, wave solder
activity and subsequent post cleaning at our customers facility may result in
flux (contaminant) entrapment in these partially restricted holes.
Do you have any experience with this issue and if so we would value your
comments and suggestions...
Please Email your reply to [log in to unmask]
Thanks...
Steve Thisuis / Jeff Johnson
Circuit Science Inc
(612) 559-9515
c/o Tim Canfield
|
|
|