Hi MoonMan,
One of the reasons why they let MIL-HDBK-217 die is that it contains too many
technically false assumptions. The F-revision was an attempt to fix this to
some degree, but a square peg just does not fit properly into a round
hole--so to speak. MIL-HDBK-217 is based solely on statistical data--many of
them flawed--and ignores the physical damage mechanisms [physics-of-failure]
at work.
And no, there is/are not "concise" IPC counterparts or a combination of
several documents, nor should there be.

Werner

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------