 
| Sender: |
|
| X-To: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:14:06 +0000 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Yes there is a difference. Wicking is the presence of plated copper along glass fiber paths evident by x-section (as examined after microetch). There could be glass fractured pathways that aren’t part of the wicking evaluation. If your customer wants a more in-depth fractured glass evaluation, as part of acceptance testing or CAF (beyond just wicking measurements), they would have to specify it in the procurement documentation, as it is not a part of 6012/A600 acceptance testing.
José (Joey) Ríos, Sr QA Engineer
Mission Assurance Manager
Kavli Institute for Astrophysics & Space Research
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
(617)324-6272
> On Jul 27, 2017, at 10:21 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Fellow TechNetters:
>
> I am searching for a clarification on the above stated IPC Standard. Is there a distinction between wicking and fractures glass rods/laminate. Is wicking always accompanied by coper plating? In my experience CAF only requires a laminate integrity anomaly to start the process of migration. All comments/discussions welcomed.
>
> Victor,
|
|
|
