Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0u7SFE-00007qC; Thu, 11 Apr 96 14:41 CDT |
Encoding: |
31 TEXT |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 11 Apr 96 14:44:00 CDT |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"UkI9i3.0.xA9.d1MRn"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
X-Loop: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
X-Mailer: |
Microsoft Mail V3.0 |
From [log in to unmask] Thu Apr 11 14: |
59:36 1996 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
As Dave Hillman mentioned, many companies have been applying this technique
for some time. It has been my experience that using this process nearly
always requires some design changes if the card was not originally intended
for the process. The papers cited by Dave touch on some of the design
concerns.
Some other issues you may want to consider:
>> Will your solder paste flux "escape" from inside the joint to the
surface? You may have to try different pastes than what you are currently
using.
>> Does your reflow process have sufficient thermal transfer capabilities
to heat under the through hole component body and into the center of the
PCB? We have been "sold" on convection reflow but vapor phase may work as
well.
>> Will you be able to provide enough solder paste to make an acceptable
joint? There are many ways to accomplish this but there are also a number
of constraints.
>> Which side you process first may have to be considered relative to how
and when you will insert the component.
In all, we have been very pleased with the success of this technique and
would like to encourage component suppliers to expand the availability of
parts which can be used in this manner. I would like to hear from others
using this process. Please feel free to contact me directly or post your
comments to the TechNet.
Bill Barthel
Electronic Assembly Corp.
[log in to unmask]
(414) 751-3651
|
|
|