TECHNET Archives

June 2000

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Alain Savard <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:05:00 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
Hi Ed,

In that case the major suspect was very poor registration, combined with
excessive wicking.

Both are easily picked out by incoming inspection of microsections.

Alain

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Cosper [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: June 5, 2000 9:34 AM
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum.; Alain Savard
Subject: Re: [TN] PCB Inspection - Alain Savards reference.

Regarding your comments regarding the effectiveness of Receiving
inspections.  I noticed you referenced seeing a board burn in the past to
illustrate the importance of receiving inspection. I am curious as to what
standard test your receiving inspection performs on incoming products that
would have detected the potential of a board that would burn?


Ed Cosper

##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5315
##############################################################

ATOM RSS1 RSS2