Gary,
  I have been using 782A since it's a preliminary release. It has been
working out well for me. However, I've been having one problem. I generally
recommend its use to other design groups within my company. I get responses
ranging from "The pads are too big" or "...too small" or "It doesn't
capture our reflow processes", etc.  My response has always been that
the above are variables to be included IN the calculations. And that
the principles outlined in 782A describe what IS being used out in the field.

  I often hear legitimate concerns that industry consenses (say for Jtmin or
Jhmin values) may be based on non-military or non-aerospace criteria. I submit
the Surface Mount Land Patterns Subcommittee includes some of the largest
commercial and military contractors. Even though I know the priciples
described in 782A are transparent to this; FOR A REALITY CHECK, it's nice to
know what is working out in the field.

  Question - is it accurate to disseminate that the above subcommittee was
intimately involved with the development of this spec? Or at least had 
submitted their models for land pattern geometry. We of course are in the
process of optimizing our own processes and allowances.

Thanks,
James Patten
TRW Space and Technology    

***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To subscribe/unsubscribe send a message <to: [log in to unmask]>   *
* with <subject: subscribe/unsubscribe> and no text in the body.          *
***************************************************************************
* If you are having a problem with the IPC TechNet forum please contact   *
* Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask]      *
***************************************************************************