TECHNET Archives

March 2013

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:
X-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:54:05 -0700
Reply-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, "Rivera, Raye" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From:
"Rivera, Raye" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
Greetings all,

I would like to ask the group for an opinion on the following question:

Is it appropriate reject a through-hole solder joint as a defect under IPC-A-610E section 7.3.5.1 (barrel fill < 75%) based on x-ray inspection?

The reason for using x-ray is that the component is in the way and preventing visual inspection of the destination side.

I know that 610 is a visual standard. I see that Section 8.3.12 specifically states that x-ray can be used to identify defects in the special case of BGAs. I find no such statement anywhere in section 7. And the standard is quite specific in calling out exactly what magnification and even lighting should be used for inspection. This leads me to believe that x-ray should NOT be used to identify through-hole defects.

Am I reading too much into this? Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Best regards,
Raye Rivera

QA Manager * Canoga Perkins
20600 Prairie Street * Chatsworth * CA 91311-6008
818-678-3872  * [log in to unmask]


______________________________________________________________________
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