Timeline for In production, is there a significant difference between QFN or TQFP components other than space?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2015 at 16:43 | history | edited | AHB | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 9, 2015 at 16:39 | comment | added | Majenko | @Roh Thanks :) I've been spending all my time over on Arduino.SE helping the Ardueenies over there... | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 16:39 | comment | added | Roh | IMO some parts of this answer are incorrect. | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 16:38 | comment | added | Roh | @Majenko Welcome back! good to see you here again. | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 13:26 | comment | added | Peter Smith | With QFN devices, be careful of the solder screen aperture at the exposed pad: too large and the device will 'float' on the exposed pad, and most likely partially tombstone the part leaving some contacts in air (and not on pads). A 50% aperture is usually used, although TI recommends dotting. | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 13:15 | comment | added | Majenko | Given the option I always choose QFN or DFN over any other package because I find it easier to solder (reflow) and yes it looks so much more "nifty" :) | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 12:54 | history | answered | AHB | CC BY-SA 3.0 |