Hey,
I am not sure you guys should be beating up the Pinto or Vega unless you
specify model years!
My brother in law had a 1970 plain brown Pinto, manual transmission.
Thing went forever, got great gas mileage. I changed the brakes for him a
couple of times but he had not major issues. I also changed his fuel pump
for him ($12 part, 10 minutes of labor).
Of course he was never suffered a rear end collision so no
fireball but near 170,000 miles and he traded it in.
Then he had a two Vega's. First one was very good to him, then he got a
newer one with the aluminum head over a non aluminum block. I believe a
1980, head gasket failures x3 then cracked head.
Some of these cars worked great and talk about cheap.
my two cents,
Chuck
Charles W. Brummer | 3M Manufacturing Engineer
3M Electronic Solutions Division
3M Canoga Park, 8357 Canoga Ave. | Canoga Park, CA 91304
Office: 818 734 4930
[log in to unmask] | www.3M.com
This message (including any attachments) may contain material, non-public
information or proprietary information and is for the intended recipients
only. If you are not the intended recipient, you should notify the sender
and delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or use of this
information is strictly prohibited and may subject you to legal liability.
From: Theodore J Tontis <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 12/09/2013 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing
Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
I am not a Ford guy so the statement about the Pinto being a POS well...
I do not think anyone said that a Vega or a Pinto is going to be a POS but
you get what you pay for.
A Vega and a Pinto will still serve the function as a Porsche, get a
person from point A to point B. However, the Porsche will perform to a
higher standard than the other two. The reason being it is that the
Porsche is designed and manufactured using different standards than the
Pinto or Vega.
The standards for high reliable electronics are not the same as general
consumer products. I do not believe that someone would call out or use the
same manufacturing or design standards needed on a life support system for
a consumer product, it's just not cost effective or practical. If one
wants high-end electronics than one should document the requirements is
all I am saying.
Ted T
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 11:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing
I absolutely agree with Syed. Just because it is a Pinto or a Vega does
not mean it has to be a POS.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ahmad, Syed
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 10:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing
Why should an engineer or a manufacturer or a seller think so of a Pinto
customer and deliver a substandard product? Quality and reliability beyond
the documented text should be the pride of a designer, a manufacturer and
a seller. Price of a product should limit amenities (power, space, leather
seats or cloth) and not compromise the pride and diligence in design and
manufacture.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Theodore J Tontis
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 10:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing
I agree with what you are saying and would add, any requirement that is
needed above and beyond a standard should be documented on the prints.
Failure to do so is at the end use customers risk. No one should expect a
supplier to accept a non-conformance or material rejection by a customer
to requirements that are not stated beforehand or agreed on.
If I am manufacturing a Porsche I am going to have more CTQ's and document
higher standards than if I was building a Pinto and, my supplier would
have that information. If the documentation is not clear who is at fault,
the supplier?
I do not believe there was a class given to the bare board being evaluated
so the default class would be what the board house produces as a standard.
It would appear there were no specific notes or documentation that
indicate to the supplier they would be held to a higher standard or
tighter requirement than the standard used by the board house.
I go back to my original statement that it should be investigated further
and if necessary make adjustments to the process. If multiple random
samples were taken with the same results there might be something worth
digging into. Also, If a higher standard is required document it on the
print or talk to the supplier to insure there is a clear understanding of
what is required.
Ted T.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joyce Koo [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 9:35 AM
To: 'TechNet E-Mail Forum'; Tontis, Theodore J
Subject: RE: [TN] Crazing
That is a design call - depend upon the application and design redundancy.
If it is space program and intended for years of use without redundancy,
it wouldn't be a indicator to me if there is deviation from qualification
specimen, for example. (I purchasing service - pwb, based on the sample =
qual specimen; if I show you a Porsche prior to contract and deliver a
pinto after you pay... hmmm, may be a good deal... Theodore, what you are
buying next time? - I'll indicate it is a process indicator since it runs
equally from your home to work).
Joyce Koo
Researcher
Materials Interconnect Lab
Office: (519) 888-7465 79945
BlackBerry: (226) 220-4760
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Theodore J Tontis
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 9:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing
Why wouldn't it just be considered a process indicator?
After all, a process indicator is not a defect and it indicates a
non-desired output that would warrant further investigation or counter
measures to correct? The material is still deemed acceptable just not
ideal.
I do believe it is not a defect and agree if we were to identify every
concern found under magnification above the specified/agreed upon
requirement, there would be a long list of issues to address and costs
would skyrocket. Isn't that why we have standards for this sort of thing?
Ted T
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 6:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing
I am not sure I accept that "along the way" theory completely.
Prevalent in all of the IPC standards, all defect categories are provided
a magnification level for inspection. For example, if a non-metallic
particle is seen on the PWB while inspecting solder joints at 20X
magnification on a conformal coated CCA, the inspector is supposed to
switch to the required magnification for the particulate matter (4X-7X).
If the particulate matter cannot be seen at that range, it is not
considered to be a defect.
If you want to entertain your "along the way" theory, then have fun
counting up the rework hours to strip away the coating, remove the
particles, clean, dry, and re-coat. No matter what you do short of
building all product in a Class 10 clean room, this unnecessary rework
will never end.
Of course, one must understand that there are certain exceptions to this;
I am just saying that you cannot allow an "along the way" philosophy in
the factory. It will put you out of business.
In regards to your example, two questions come to mind:
1. What is the magnification required when inspecting for particulate
matter between conductors at the PWB level, and what is the minimum
electrical clearance between the two traces you describe? If the material
was visible at the required magnification, it was an escape, and should
have been caught at the higher magnification you describe anyway, and is a
real defect.
2. Did you measure the resistance again after the tiny piece of material
was removed, and did it make any difference?
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gerry Gagnon
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 7:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing
Hi Paul,
Hope you and Bill B. are doing fine.
I am assuming that you you were looking for something else and detected a
"non-conforming" level of crazing.
In my mind, this is an easy one because you found the non-conformance
"along the way" while examining your microsection.
Let me give you an easier analogy.
While examining a region of an IST test coupon in transverse mount, I find
a tiny piece of material bridging two conductors at high mag.
Clearing away the conductor surfaces enough to measure if there is a
resistance, I get a value in the MegOhm range.
Is it a short?
Unless things gave changed, Bare board continuity thresholds will not
detect this phenomenon.
Let's also say that innerlayer AOI (if performed) has a very high escape
rate for this type of phenomenon or may not even detect it at all.
Is the phenomonon a short per IPC A-610?
My answer is yes, it is an unwanted connection, albeit a high resistance
connection, and is difficult to detect.
Does the fact that I found this short in a cross section under high
magnification, while I was looking for something else, change anything?
I don't think so, and I do not think IPC A-610 allows non-conformances
that are found "along the way".
Have a good one.
Gerry
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:05:41 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] Crazing
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> I was just on a conference call where we found crazing (a separation
> between glass fibers and the epoxy system), in a microsection. The
> fabricator stated that this had to be evaluated looking at a board
> macroscopically and could not be evaluated microscopically.
>
>
>
> Crazing is called out in IPC-A- 600 in section 2, paragraph 2.3.2 page
> 18, which is "Externally Observable Characteristics". In A-600 there
> is picture of a microsection showing the defect but it states that a
> microsection is not required.
>
>
>
> In IPC 6012-2010 crazing is call out in 3.3.2.2, page 12, which states
> (I am paraphrasing), "Crazing shall not violate greater than 50% of
> the distance between adjacent conductors..." The document then refers
> to IPC A 600.
>
>
>
> What is your take on their argument that crazing should not be
> evaluated microscopically as per IPC?
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Paul Reid
>
> Program Coordinator
>
> PWB Interconnect Solutions Inc.
> 235 Stafford Rd., West, Unit 103
> Nepean, Ontario Canada, K2H 9C1
>
> 613 596 4244 ext. 229
>
> Skype paul_reid_pwb
> [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]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
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 transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected by the
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from
your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be
unlawful.
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
