TECHNET Archives

August 1997

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 Mail Forum<[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Kasprzak, Bill (esd) US" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:04:00 PDT
Reply-To:
"TechNet Mail Forum." <[log in to unmask]>, "Kasprzak, Bill (esd) US" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
Technetters:

We have a customer that we are working with concerning J-Std-001. The
customer wants to take exception to many portions of the standard as written
and instead impose different criteria. For example, Lead protrusion for
leaded components should range from discernible to 1.5mm (.060 ). This is
according to paragraph 6.5.3 of J-Std-001B. Our customer wants to impose a
.020 to .060 range for lead protrusion. The feeling being that the
discernible lead protrusion results in a solder joint with less strength
than one with more lead protrusion.

My questions are:

1) The criteria agreed upon in the J-Std-001, was it decided, discussed and
voted by committee ?  Were there any items that passed by a 51-49 vote ?

2) What happened to dissenting views ? What issues were debated ?

3) Anyone out there with experience with a customer who wants to take
exception to certain portions of J-Std-001 ? How was the situation handled ?

4) Anyone have any comments, good or bad, about J-std-001 ?

Thanks to all who can respond.

Bill Kasprzak
Moog Inc.
716-652-2000   ext. 2507
[log in to unmask]


ATOM RSS1 RSS2