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
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required