TECHNET Archives

1996

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Received:
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0uDv6M-00008KC; Mon, 29 Apr 96 10:43 CDT
Old-Return-Path:
<simon.ipc.org!bort.mv.net!rapidcad!jseeger>
Date:
Mon, 29 Apr 96 11:46:00 EDT
Precedence:
list
Resent-From:
Resent-Sender:
TechNet-request [log in to unmask]
From [log in to unmask] Wed May 1 14:
28:16 1996
Status:
O
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/3715
TO:
Return-Path:
<TechNet-request>
Resent-Message-ID:
<"S6l4K2.0.HrL.6EEXn"@ipc>
Subject:
From:
"Jeff Seeger" <simon.ipc.org!bort.mv.net!rapidcad!jseeger>
X-Status:
X-Loop:
X-VMS-Mail-To:
Message-Id:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)



	Gary,

	The 1 oz for 2 oz swap can be less than totally safe.

	The major differences, thickness and power handling, can manifest
	themselves in a couple of ways.

	If a large board contains many high-powered devices the 2 oz's may
	be needed to minimize plane impedance (voltage drop).  The same
	thing applies to any board that supplies or passes-through power
	to a plug-in.  Similarly, 2 oz`s can be a band aid for a design
	that has improper combinations of anti-pad size and via-to-via
	spacings (inadequate webs).

	In some rare cases, we've needed to use 2 oz copper to make up
	thickness on difficult/critical impedance stackups, usually in a
	trade-off against standard material thicknesses and narrow windows
	for line widths.

	On the other hand, a great many part numbers (primarily in the 80's)
	were specified with a "rubber stamp" for 2 oz copper, and this may
	still happen today.

	Good luck figuring out which case your looking at!

	Jeff Seeger
	Applied CAD



ATOM RSS1 RSS2