TECHNET Archives

June 1999

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:
Bill Davis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:54:45 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
Poh- I would agree with a zero chip-off approach. SMT caps are probably the
most fragile component assembled on a board- external chips create a
nucleation point for fractures. These fractures represent a relaibility risk
as they propagate, ultimately causing component failure due to leakage in
the part. With resistors there's less of a failure threat, however, I have
seen failures over extended time periods because of chip-outs. These
fractures (induced by the chip-out) propagate principally with mechanical
vibrations (the caps can propogate with either mechanical or electrical
influences).
Hope this helps...

> Bill Davis, Ph.D.
> Diamond Multimedia Systems
> Senior Scientist
> Tel. 408.325.7868
> Cell. 408.888.5650
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>


-----Original Message-----
From: Poh Kong Hui [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 12:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] : Chip-off on component body


Hi Technetters,

Would anyone like to comment zero chip-off on either chip capacitor
or chip resistor body.

There are many OEM companies reject if there is chip off on the
component body, and the worst is that, many component makers
are not able to accept zero chip-off as their specification.

Anyone please kindly comment.

Thanks
Poh

ATOM RSS1 RSS2