 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | TechNet E-Mail Forum. |
| Date: | Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:41:01 PDT |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Poh
See IPCA610 Rev B page 129 and 131 for details on chip outs. Class 1 and 2
standards (and 3 for resistors) allow for some, though measuring each would
take longer than part replacements. Knowing the history of multilayer
ceramic chip capacitors, I personally wouldn't allow any chips on MCCC's,
regardless of whether I was only manufacturing to class 2 standards.
Best Regards
Ian Boyton
>From: Poh Kong Hui <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "TechNet E-Mail Forum." <[log in to unmask]>, Poh Kong Hui
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [TN] : Chip-off on component body
>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 03:57:15 +0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>From [log in to unmask] Sun Jun 20 01:24:13 1999
>Received: from [209.42.15.66] by hotmail.com (1.5) with SMTP id
>MHotMailB935F02B01C0D1B98331D12A0F421B770; Sun Jun 20 01:24:13 1999
>Received: from jefry by simon.ipc.org via ESMTP
>(951211.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH1502/940406.SGI) id DAA17522; Sun, 20 Jun 1999
>03:02:05 -0700
>Received: from IPC.ORG by IPC.ORG (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool
>id 2007194 for [log in to unmask]; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:55:22 -0500
>Received: from simon.ipc.org by IPC.ORG (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with
>SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>; 20 Jun 1999 2:55:21 -0500
>Received: from zinc.singnet.com.sg by simon.ipc.org via ESMTP
>(951211.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH1502/940406.SGI) for <[log in to unmask]> id
>CAA17307; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:43:52 -0700
>Received: from LOCALNAME (qtns02004.singnet.com.sg [165.21.164.194]) by
> zinc.singnet.com.sg (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA04074 for
><[log in to unmask]>; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:03:09 +0800 (SGT)
>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16)
>Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Hi Technetters,
>
>Would anyone like to comment zero chip-off on either chip capacitor
>or chip resistor body.
>
>There are many OEM companies reject if there is chip off on the
>component body, and the worst is that, many component makers
>are not able to accept zero chip-off as their specification.
>
>Anyone please kindly comment.
>
>Thanks
>Poh
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
|
|
|
