> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:57:36 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 18:01:41 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 14.06.21 um 17:27 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4j35ny39w8fo343/AACp_DApeRQRaMLsvh3KMLWFa?dl=0
>>>>
>>>> I think the frequency should settle down to 1/(10*Tpd) but it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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:
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6isv7k1t3fre0w/PCBWAY_Mask.jpg?raw=1
>>
>> Q1 is horrible.
>>
>> 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.
>
> My proto boards just arrived.
>
>
> This is pretty ugly:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pyeibpqfmd9oxl8/Z498_GaN.jpg?raw=1
>
>
Blech. Who perpetrated that one?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.nethttp://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by Phil Hobbs●June 14, 20212021-06-14
John Miles, KE5FX wrote:
> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 9:57:50 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6isv7k1t3fre0w/PCBWAY_Mask.jpg?raw=1
>>
>> Q1 is horrible.
>
> 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
>
Nah, Pentalogix and Screaming Circuits are both tops.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.nethttp://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by John Larkin●June 14, 20212021-06-14
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:57:36 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 18:01:41 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
>wrote:
>
>>Am 14.06.21 um 17:27 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4j35ny39w8fo343/AACp_DApeRQRaMLsvh3KMLWFa?dl=0
>>>
>>> I think the frequency should settle down to 1/(10*Tpd) but it doesn't.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>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:
>
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6isv7k1t3fre0w/PCBWAY_Mask.jpg?raw=1
>
>Q1 is horrible.
>
>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
Reply by ●June 14, 20212021-06-14
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 18:01:41 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:
>Am 14.06.21 um 17:27 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4j35ny39w8fo343/AACp_DApeRQRaMLsvh3KMLWFa?dl=0
>>
>> I think the frequency should settle down to 1/(10*Tpd) but it doesn't.
>>
>> 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.
>
>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:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6isv7k1t3fre0w/PCBWAY_Mask.jpg?raw=1
Q1 is horrible.
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.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
The best designs are necessarily accidental.
Reply by Gerhard Hoffmann●June 14, 20212021-06-14
Am 14.06.21 um 17:27 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4j35ny39w8fo343/AACp_DApeRQRaMLsvh3KMLWFa?dl=0
>
> I think the frequency should settle down to 1/(10*Tpd) but it doesn't.
>
> 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.
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
Reply by ●June 14, 20212021-06-14
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4j35ny39w8fo343/AACp_DApeRQRaMLsvh3KMLWFa?dl=0
I think the frequency should settle down to 1/(10*Tpd) but it doesn't.
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.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
The best designs are necessarily accidental.