On 03:49 PM 16/03/2004, Dennis Saputelli said:
<..snip..>
as to maximum packing density:
isn't this a function of the placement jaws?
and isn't that a moving target?


I guess newer machines are more accurate than older ones - you do have to work with what your assembler can cope with though (or move to a different assembler).



what are good numbers for 0603 for example?
side to side and end to end?

Dunno - I wish I had some hard numbers. Not just what the assembler says but real graphs showing failure rates (shorts mostly I guess) vs separation. Anyone got any hard data?


<..snip..>

when you say wave solder
are you referring to bottom side parts which are glued and
then waved?

yep



regardless of the pad size and in our somewhat limited
experience with this process (glue, flip and wave)
it has been less satisfactory than a fully reflowed process

We do quite number of designs where the bottom side is all wave soldered surface mount and the top is mixed reflow leaded. We are pretty used to the process these days. Designing for wave soldering is much more onerous that reflow solder thieves, alignment, shadowing etc - not hard just a little more time is needed - oh and wave density is much lower than reflow.


Ian

Ian Wilson wrote:
>
> One to stir up the hornets nest a little...and a little off topic maybe
>
> http://www.considered.com.au/ProtelFiles/images/Phycomp_vs_IPC.gif
>



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to