DESIGNERCOUNCIL Archives

December 1999

DesignerCouncil@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"David P. Ho" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
DesignerCouncil E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:15:46 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
Jim,

One of our customer use 10 microgram/in2 as a pass or fail criteria for bare
boards, using the modified rose test.


[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: DesignerCouncil [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Walton, Jim
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [DC] IPC Ionic test


Hey everyone,

Has anyone come to a conclusion when using IPC-tm-650 number 2.3.39? Item
6.8 clearly avoids any usable answer. I am looking for max. acceptable
levels of  contaminants for bare boards (incoming from the fab house) and
assembled boards (before they are shipped from our dock). How about a
listing of severity of certain contaminants as they pertain to dendrite
growth on pcbs? I have test results, but I'm not a chemist so I am having a
hard time coming up with definitive answers to what is "bad" and what can
pass.
I know there must be "real world" experienced people out there that can
help.


TIA

Jim Walton

ATOM RSS1 RSS2