======== Original Message ========
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Received: from simon.ipc.org (IPC.ORG [168.113.24.64]) by
dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
	id KAA19863; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 10:02:36 -0400
Received: from ipc.org by simon.ipc.org via SMTP
(940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
	 id IAA22544; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:57:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:57:10 -0700
Received: by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
	id m0v8Rd8-0000TSC; Wed, 2 Oct 96 08:46 CDT
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
>Received:  by relay.thebureau.com (UUPC/extended 1.12p);
           Wed, 02 Oct 1996 08:57:57 -0600
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Mailer: MimeLink version 1.50B
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 08:43:00 -0600
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FAB: Reject Identification
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Iso-8859-1; name=body.txt
Resent-Message-ID: <"P3qaa3.0.izH.q8dKo"@ipc>
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/6624
X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]

I an interested in common practices for reject marking during the PC 
manufacturing process.  Presently, we are using several different techniques

depending upon the process and type of product.  I would be great to have a 
more universal method for marking rejects.  Thanks in advance for any input.

***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to:           *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text.        *
***************************************************************************
======== Fwd by: Tony King / N ========
I would also be interested to know how other organizations mark their
defectives in-process.  We have gone through many various techniques but
have not found one technique that works well for everything. We initially
tried drilling three holes 0.250 dia. in the defective circuit, this worked
well to insure that the piece could not subsequently pass electrical test
however the holes did create processing problem at dry film photo resist
coating with film chips (note that not all defects found in process would
fail at electrical test, the drilled holes are a guarantee that defective
product will functionally fail). We then tried a permanent ink marking pen
and found the ink was not permanent enough. A special "R" stamp was made to
allow a permanent"R" to be presses into the reject, this system failed
though because the "R" did not prevent the circuit from passing test and the
 "R" was also difficult to locate in-process which made counts difficult and
time consuming. We ultimately went back to the drilled hole system.

Tony King
Elexsys International Inc.
Nashua N.H.
Phone: 603-886-0066
[log in to unmask]

***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to:           *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text.        *
***************************************************************************