Sounds like a "dirty trick" that might come in useful once in a great while. On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Denny Esterline wrote: > No great experience to give you a definitive answer. I think you're just > about spot-on with your concerns, but I would look at this as a risk > management exercise. On a one-off hand assembled board, absolutely do it. > On a high volume production product, heck no. As is usually the case in > most things, reality probably lies somewhere between the extremes. > > As to #1, I think that a properly designed footprint should have each pad > be a net neutral force during reflow - i.e. center of pad=3D=3Dcenter of = pin > contact area. As such, missing a few pads on one side should remain net > neutral. > As to #2, I wouldn't be overly concerned unless you're working on somethi= ng > expected to survive "high acceleration events". (think artillery shell) > you're only talking about an 8% reduction in contacts. I think you'd see = a > bigger difference than that in the variance between lead and lead-free > solder. > In low volume setting, if you're greatly concerned about #3 - just cut th= em > off at time of assembly. > > -Denny > -- > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .