 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0wQyk5-000BjNC; Mon, 12 May 97 12:18 CDT
from simon.ipc.org by ipc.org with smtp
(Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0wQy28-000BisC; Mon, 12 May 97 11:33 CDT
from multi26.netcomi.com by simon.ipc.org via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
id LAA05302; Mon, 12 May 1997 11:31:02 -0700
(from bobb@localhost) by multi26.netcomi.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id LAA26553; Mon, 12 May 1997 11:43:13 -0500
from kani.wwa.com (kani.wwa.com [198.49.174.58]) by multi26.netcomi.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA26546 for < [log in to unmask]>; Mon, 12 May 1997 11:43:02 -0500
from ipc.org/ipc.ipc.org [209.42.29.23] by kani.wwa.com with smtp
(Smail3.2.WWA) id m0wQy3N-003vN2C; Mon, 12 May 1997 11:42:11 -0500 (CDT)
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0wQxtk-000BjkC; Mon, 12 May 97 11:24 CDT
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0wQxIJ-000BisC; Mon, 12 May 97 10:45 CDT |
| Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
| Date: |
Mon, 12 May 1997 10:45:36 -0500 (CDT) |
| X-Loop: |
|
| cc: |
|
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Status: |
O |
| TO: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Mon May 12 17: |
24:41 1997 |
| X-Status: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
<Pine.3.89.9705121056.M36352-0100000@ipc> |
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| >From bergdi Mon May 12 12: |
18:58 1997 |
| Old-To: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Jack, IPC-4101 is in "Interim Final" circulation and when published
should be adequate to handle both commercial and Mil-spec replacement
callouts. IPC-4101 will supercede IPC-L-108 (thin lam), IPC-L-109
(prepreg), IPC-L-112 (composite lam) and IPC-L-115 (rigid lam). I hope
that within one year it will also replace MIL-P-13949.
Regards
__________________________________________________
David W. Bergman, V.P. of Technical Programs
IPC
2215 Sanders Road
Northbrook, IL 60062-6135
847-509-9700 x340 Phone
847-509-9798 Fax
email [log in to unmask]
www http://www.ipc.org
---------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9 May 1997, Jack Olson wrote:
> I am embarrassed to have to ask this, because I know it has been
> discussed before, but I have a question about replacing MIL standard
> references with commercial standards.
>
> Our default fabrication drawing notes always say (whatever specific)
> material "per MIL-P-13949". Is that common these days? Is there a better
> replacement for material if our designs are commercial only? Does it
> even matter?
>
> I looked at the IPC stuff and there is a whole series of IPC-L-XXX
> specs, but I wouldn't even know what is appropriate.
> I thought I had a web link to a "comparison" kind of service, but can't
> find it (I've just discovered that many links I have been saving for a
> special occasion like this, no longer work! d'oh!)
>
> On a more broad-scale issue: Are any of you fabrication vendors out
> there willing to share what you like to see on a fab dwg regarding
> notes? For many of us, we just want a good product and don't really care
> what the notes say, we just put whatever we think you need to see....
> What do you need to see, MINIMUM?
>
> material, finish, mask, & legend
> quality per ipc-rb-275 for type x class x
> is that enough? jack
>
> ***************************************************************************
> * The 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.*
> ***************************************************************************
> * If you are having a problem with the DesignerCouncil, please contact *
> * Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask] *
> ***************************************************************************
>
|
|
|
