... Rich Mellitz
From: Greim, Michael [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 8:50 AM
To: 'email@example.com, "Volk, Andrew M"';
Subject: [SI-LIST] : RE: Another decoupling question
I can appreciate the value of that, however, I would think
most manufacturing folks would run kicking and screaming
from a multi-stage assembly approach. What happens when
the caps fail as a short. You end up having to pull
and perhaps scrap a potentially expensive BGA to save the
.01 cent capacitor.
From a manufacturability perspective, I would advocate
as close as possible to the outer edge of the chip and
on the opposite side of the board. Chips on top of chips is
bad idea. IMHO.
Michael C. Greim
Mercury Computer Systems, Inc email: firstname.lastname@example.org
199 Riverneck Road V:
Chelmsford, MA 01824-2820 F:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Volk, Andrew M [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 5:04 PM
> To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Subject: RE: Another decoupling question
> SI Listeners -
> Another question on decoupling. I have recently heard
> that are supposedly thin enough to fit under a standard
> (Novacap for one). This would give excellent decoupling
as it is close to
> the package power balls, but still mounts on the top of
the board avoiding
> backside components.
> Has anyone had any experience with this type of device and
this kind of
> manufacturing step (cap under BGA package)?
> Andrew Volk
> Intel Corp.
**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
email@example.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at
**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list ****