 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tdN9a-0000OUC; Fri, 19 Jan 96 14:11 CST |
| Encoding: |
14 TEXT |
| From [log in to unmask] Mon Jan 22 12: |
15:53 1996 |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Fri, 19 Jan 96 14:14:00 CST |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"7SiID.0.808.bh__m"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Microsoft Mail V3.0 |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I am curious, what are commonly used receiving inspection procedures for
outsourced multilayer PWB's and the value of individual procedure.
I would like to know more about what other companies thoughts and
procedures are, on doing solderability tests, cross section analysis,
requiring COC's and ionic contamination testing at receiving inspection.
Is this analysis found to be benefiticial and identify defective lots?
Basically I am looking for others to share the experiences they had with
bare board inspection and ideas to optimize the effectiveness of the PCB
inspection step for a high quality board.
Thank you,
|
|
|
