We might do some pcb footprint tests for the tiny EPC fets, and I thought a board with a lot of ring oscillators would be a good way to test for good soldering.
The EPC data sheet recommends a tiny solder-mask-defined pad arrangement that the board houses don't do well. I want to try some big klunky pads with conventional mask clearances.
Am 14.06.21 um 17:27 schrieb snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com:
JLCPCB had absolutely no problem with the datasheet pads. All it did was to trigger a request for confirmation that solder mask ON parts of the pad was intended.
Gerhard
PCBWAY did this:
And a US board house recently complained about the solder mask resolution requirement. I like the idea of bigger conventional pads; the thermals will be better too.
Try WellPCB.
US board houses are good at getting the most out of 20-year-old processes and equipment, and at whining about competition from China, but not at much else.
-- john, KE5FX
My proto boards just arrived.
This is pretty ugly:
Nah, Pentalogix and Screaming Circuits are both tops.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Blech. Who perpetrated that one?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.