oops, I said it wrong. I went back to my notes, Brian Ellis said keep them in:
-=-=-=-
Subject: Re: non-functional pad removal
From: Brian Ellis <
[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:45:21 +0300
If the inner layer copper thickness is >35 µm (and sometimes 35 µm),
e.g., power planes, then you should keep the copper there for fear of
resin starvation.
Brian
-=-=-=-
Also, I think I might have said some thing else wrong...
Werner said on July12
"To prevent the latter, remove NFPs from large diameter holes and leave them in place for small diameters."
and I said that backwards in my sample note
and just now on aug04 Werner said:
"Don't remove NFPs from layers 1,2,3,n-2,n-1,n—FOR LARGER DIAMETER HOLES"
Now I'm not sure what to remove and what to leave
(and I'm just an instigator, no knowledge of this subject)
Jack
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Dave Schaefer
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Jack,
Thanks for summarizing here, I do also monitor Technet but find it's
difficult to locate topics of interest without plowing through a lot of
unrelated and often NTC content there.
There's a part of your summary that I can't seem to digest :
"In additon, there was a direct conflict between two comments, one
recommended removing NFPs for thick power planes (BEllis), the other said a
DOE testing 24 layers of 2oz was more reliable with NFPs removed (GGagnon)."
Both comments seem to indicate thick power planes should have NFPs removed -
can you clarify?
Thanks,
Dave