TECHNET Archives

November 1997

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
Sender:
Subject:
From:
"Tully, Marti (AZ15)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:56:35 -0600
X-To:
"[log in to unmask] (IPM Return requested)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
"TechNet Mail Forum." <[log in to unmask]>, "Tully, Marti (AZ15)" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
Our experience with this issues has not been totally positive.  Although one
may successfully protect the actual bare board (assuming certain minimum
thicknesses of soldermask), any exposed copper on components still are
subject to corrosion.

A second issue specifically on SMT boards is the height of the  soldermask.
 If the mask is too high, it creates problems at assembly.  If it is not
thick enough over the corners of isolated circuits, it does not afford
adequate protection.

A third issue is handling vias under components.  LPI does not tent well
enough to protect the via.  HASL prior to plugging, especially on mixed
technology boards, creates assembly issues.  Successfully 100% plugging vias
with mask is an artform.

I would not recommend soldermask as an alternative to conformal coating.
 ----------
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] ASSY:  Soldermask vs conformal coat


ATOM RSS1 RSS2