Why would it be any different with 2 different boards on a panel from
panelizing the board with 2 of the same boards on a panel? What are
your quantities? What is the reject rate (are both boards about =)?
I think having the same board code number--but a different PANEL
NUMBER, is the only way to go. If the configuration every changed,
you just change the panel number and redesign the panel, not the
board.
Char Dwyer
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Documentation for panelizing Different boards
Author: "John Parsons" <[log in to unmask]> at Internet
Date: 10/17/96 1:28 PM
Robert,
Good Luck! I think that you will find this idea more pain than gain. The
other problem you will run into is dealing with rejects. If one of the
boards in your set has a defect, you will have to scrap the entire set, as
I no of no way to accept a percentage of a part number into stock. If you
as a rule, accept "X-Outs" from your board vendor, this will no doubt drive
up the initial cost of your boards, as yield will no doubt be reduced.
Also, if you use only a portion of the set, what happens to the remaining
boards. An accounting nightmare!
Sorry, nothing positive to say. We used to try this with enclosures, and
ended up with seperate part numbers for each component.
Regards
John Parsons
----------
> From: Wolfe, Robert <[log in to unmask]>
> To: 'IPC technet' <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Documentation for panelizing Different boards
> Date: Thursday, October 17, 1996 10:48 AM
>
>
> Need some help.
> We have a situation where we would like to document two or possibly more
> different board assemblies on one panel, that may want to also be
produced
> separately. Each board has its own part number. We have separate numbers
for
> Assy/BOM , fabrication, and Artwork. It seems if the boards are to be
> produced only in one place there may not be a problem but if there are
many
> vendors used it may be a documentation nightmare. I mean this for the
reason
> that if the boards that are paneled together are ALWAYS needed in the
same
> quantities or that one would never be produced without the other the
> documentation is somewhat easy. But if one of the boards may want to be
> produced separately, which could happen. I don't seem to be able to come
up
> with a clean solution that satisfies all departments i.e. purchasing,
> manufacturing, repair and return, receiving, etc.
> An example is a CPU card that always has to have a flash memory module on
> it. We want to fabricate, assemble, and test these two boards together.
But
> they really need to be two separate numbers, and there will be a need to
> only produce memory modules separately.
> Any suggestions???
> Thanks
> Bob Wolfe
> [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.
*
>
***************************************************************************
>
***************************************************************************
* 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. *
***************************************************************************
Received: from usr.com (mailgate.usr.com) by robogate2.usr.com with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.02 Enterprise) id 266BD330; Thu, 17 Oct 96 18:11:47
-0500
Received: from simon.ipc.org by usr.com (8.7.5/3.1.090690-US Robotics)
id SAA14650; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:14:18 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ipc.org by simon.ipc.org via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
id RAA09954; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 17:56:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 17:56:55 -0700
Received: by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vDzvG-0000SOC; Thu, 17 Oct 96 16:24 CDT
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
From: "John Parsons" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Wolfe, Robert" <[log in to unmask]>, "'IPC technet'" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Documentation for panelizing Different boards
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 13:28:51 -0700
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1141
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Resent-Message-ID: <"8IM871.0.X6K.nFgPo"@ipc>
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/6968
X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
|
