TECHNET Archives

August 1997

TechNet@IPC.ORG

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

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
TechNet Mail Forum.
Date:
Fri, 8 Aug 1997 20:33:58 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
Bill:  The rationale for lead extension in a straight-through (stud)
termination in a plated through hole is to assure that sufficient lead is
visible for an inspector to instantly confirm/deny that a lead is in-fact
present in the solder connection, strength of the connection is not a factor
in the requirement.   The 0.020 to 0.060 requirement that you referenced is a
previous military requirement (required for the same reason as above).  If
there is no functional reason to drive the decision one way or the other then
do whatever is desired (although retraining of assembly and inspection
personnel may be appropriate).  Note that, as Jack Crawford pointed out in so
many words, the J/STD-001B is a "default" document.  That is to say, if
nothing to the contrary is called out by contract or assembly drawings then
the conditions (processes, procedures, criteria, materials, etc.) of the
J/STD are expected to apply.  While the J/STD is a good middle-of-the road
document, it is appropriate to tailor it to any given set of product
requirements within any of the three classes of equipment.
Regards, Jim Moffitt


ATOM RSS1 RSS2