Text item: 

Isn't there also an issue with thresholds on the bare board tester? How 
does that fit in?


 .int [log in to unmask]
 The net list test protects you from BIG screwups where the whole lots is the
 same - All wrong - but the same so it passes a learned test. These
screwups are
 just as often the customers problem as the FAB makers problem and is a very
 good idea to net list test. Ever assemble a few hundred large PWAs and then
 find they ALL have the power to ground short you designed in and in a hard to
 rework place too?

 As far as occasional opens / shorts. Sometimes the test is incomplete and not
 detecting the error. This  could be because a flip test will miss a few via on
 surface mount PWBs. Or a missing pin or poor fixture design with a learned
 program if they re-learn every lot.. Often the problem happened after some
 thermal or mechanical event and wasnt there when tested
 Larry Sternig
 [log in to unmask]

 *** Original Author: ipc.ipc.org!ipc.org!          01/24/96  095210

 Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 07:37:52 -0800
 Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
 From: BOB HOENE <[log in to unmask]>
 Subject: Electrical test efficiency.

 To: [log in to unmask]
 Message-id: <[log in to unmask]>
 MIME-version: 1.0
 X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
 Resent-Message-ID: <"9qole1.0.us6.iea1n"@ipc>
 Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
 X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/2333
 X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
 Precedence: list
 Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]

 Would anyone who happens to be an electrical test guru provide the
 relative efficiency of bare board electrical test and compare a "standard"
 electrical test to a "net list test". The impetus for this is our in-circuit
  test
 department wondering why they occasionally still find opens and shorts
 on "tested" boards. All responses and opinions greatly appreciated.

 Thanks,

 Bob Hoene
 Marquette Electronics
 Milwaukee, WI

Text item: External Message Header

The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.

***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.

Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/2344
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
Resent-Message-ID: <"OMuO93.0.JrD.8Yd1n"@ipc>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Electrical test efficienc
From: "LARRY A. STERNIG" <[log in to unmask]>
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 12:24:14 -0600
Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
     id m0tf9oZ-0000PiC; Wed, 24 Jan 96 12:20 CST
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 10:44:39 -0800
Received: from ipc.org by simon.ipc.org via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
      id KAA26746; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 10:44:39 -0800
Received: from simon.ipc.org (IPC.ORG [168.113.24.64]) by ormail.intel.com (8.6.
12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA18072 for <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 24
 Jan 1996 11:01:09 -0800
Received: from ormail.intel.com by relay.hf.intel.com with smtp
     (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0tfART-000qEHC; Wed, 24 Jan 96 11:01 PST