TECHNET Archives

1995

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:
Date:
Tue, 17 Oct 95 14:39:48 dst
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
As an assembly shop I would be against cancelling this test method 
unless there is some better alternative that would replace it (and 
data demonstrating that the alternative is at least as effective in 
detecting PWBs that may not survive processing including rework).

I realize that the test method is manual and needs work, in fact a 
whole new methodology may be required (a number of companies, 
including ours; use a "3X-5X" solder dip for example).  

Problem is PWAs do commonly undergo multiple reflows (wave + IR/Vapor 
+ hand (2nd assembly) + rework) and we have to have some confidence 
that they will survive.

Jim Maguire
Boeing Defense & Space Group.
(206)657-9063.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: rework simulation test method
Author:  [log in to unmask] at esdigate
Date:    10/16/95 2:58 PM


The group that was suppose to rewrite this method had suggested that 
this method be CANCELED.  

Any comments from the membership?




ATOM RSS1 RSS2