Can't find any reason for having two different terminal styles in the data sheets. What's the story here? Concave would seem easier to pick- and-place manually IMO.
- posted
15 years ago
Can't find any reason for having two different terminal styles in the data sheets. What's the story here? Concave would seem easier to pick- and-place manually IMO.
Hi
I did some work on this almost 10 years ago and introduced them at the place I worked. They can relly save a lot in production price, but we have had very much trouble getting the production up to speed of mounting them without solder errors. As far as I know they never succeeded in reducing the failure rate to a satisfactory level. But, thats a long time ago, probably better now and perpaps your production have more experience.
We used the convex version from phycomp, since the purchase department reported that this was the dominant one used in the marked and thus had some advantages. (ARV341). We had major problems in finding the correct stensil thickness and footprint, did a lot of thermal cycling tests. If you want, I think I can dig up some data?
Regards
Klaus
I think the convex one works like pins, so easier to manually solder. Concave works better with auto pick and place. If you are not sure, you can always try the flat one (choice #3).
Thanks, I've been us>
Flat is out of the question, poor availability in the size I need. Probably continue to use convex since that's the cheapest option at the moment but can use either concave or convex. Thanks!
>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.