Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uC72e-00004HC; Wed, 24 Apr 96 11:03 CDT |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 24 Apr 96 10:44:10 EST |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"hpIKb2.0.2QK.S3bVn"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 17: |
08:17 1996 |
X-Loop: |
|
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
David,
Thanks for the file info on Alloy 42. Most of the info is related
to the solderability of the leads. I had heard that the Alloy 42
leads were not as pliable as standard copper leads, thus intro-
ducing a possible failure mechanism on (thin) cards prone to more
warp and/or twist. ie:cracking at the interface
Any comments from our component/assembly/reliability guru's?
marko
Is anyone using components (such as TSOP,etc.) that have alloy 42
leads on thin card PCMCIA's? I have heard that reliability may
be an issue (less compliancy) due to handling/assembly/encasement
flexure. Solder joint cracking is said to be evident in reliability
testing... Thanks
marko
|
|
|