TECHNET Archives

June 2012

TechNet@IPC.ORG
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:45:45 -0500
Reply-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, "Garcia, Rigo (GSFC-300.0)[ARES CORP]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
SIR Testing - IPC-TM-650 - 2.6.3 vs 2.6.3.7
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From:
"Garcia, Rigo (GSFC-300.0)[ARES CORP]" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines) 
Hi everybody,

I am reviewing a proposal for a new solvent from a supplier. When reviewing their qualification package I noted they tested the IPC-B-52 coupons to the 2.6.3 Test Method "Moisture and Insulation Resistance, Printed Boards" instead of the obvious 2.6.3.7 Test Method "Surface Insulation Resistance".

Does anybody have any idea why they would've want to do this? Is 2.6.3.7 more stringent?

Thanks for the help!

Rigo Garcia

Sr. Quality Engineer
NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center
Workmanship Standards, Code 300
Phone. (301) 286-6129
Fax.     (301) 286-6576


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2