Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:10:07 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Tells how you REALLY feel Brian. :)
Bev
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Correlation Factors for ROSE Testing
These 'equivalence factors' were about the most stupid thing that ever
came out of MIL specs (MIL-P-28809A, to be precise). They were
absolutely meaningless, like calibrating a micrometer with a wooden foot
rule. It tried to reduce the instruments down to the level of the spray
from a wash-bottle test which alone could easily introduce errors of 48%
or more. Furthermore, the instruments it refers to were those of 1981,
which bear absolutely no resemblance to those marketed today.
I refer you to Bergendahl and Dunn 'Evaluation of Test Equipment for the
Detection of Contamination on Electronic Circuits', European Space
Agency Technical Memorandum ESA STM-234, Paris (1984). This document not
only verifies that the notion is nonsense, but that the so-called
'equivalence factors' for each instrument varies greatly with both the
flux and cleaning process used.
This notion of 'equivalence factor' should be relegated to the
oubliettes once and for all.
Brian
On 16/02/2012 21:59, Richard Kraszewski wrote:
> While I realize that IPC specifically and the industry in general, does not support the use of ROSE correlation factors for the various testers, I have a need to see the official document that at one time quoted these specifically allowed factors.
>
> I took a cursory look though all 230 pages of IPC TR 583 and didn't see that table.
>
> I seem to recall a military specification that had that table. Was it 454? 28809, 2000?
>
> Does anyone recall?
>
>
> Rich� Kraszewski / PLEXUS
> �
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|