Rick, your comment reinforces the reason that many commercial standards have the "Order of Precedence" statement. I was referring to the same standard that Bill referenced, IPC-A-610. In the case you site for 55110/31032, the certification is only an issue because you and your customer agree to be bound by the qualifying activity.  Any standard, commercial or otherwise, is only invoked as the user and supplier agree. It's accomplished when both parties sign the dotted lines.

I was attempting to point out that if the drawing said to run the jumper around the edge of the board, it didn't matter if IPC-A-610 identified it as a defect. The assembler follows the drawings and up-line inspection would accept to the drawings rather than the standard.  Standards can't be all things to all people; the following words (as agreed through industry consensus balloting) provide the escape mechanism for a user/supplier to adjust their requirements so they can build the product that meets their specific requirements. In the case of mods/engineering change orders, hopefully someone smart enough to weigh all the issues before making a decision where and how to run the jumpers.

IPC/EIA J-STD-001C 3.1 Order of Precedence
"The contract always takes precedence over this tandard, referenced standards and drawings. . . .
3.1.1 Conflict
In the event of conflict between the requirements of this standard and the applicable assembly drawing(s)/documentation, the applicable user aproved assembly drawing(s)/documentation shall govern. In the event of conflict between the requirements of this standard and an assembly drawing(s)/documentation that has not been approved, this standard shall govern.

IPC-A-610C 1.4.3 Acceptance Criteria says:
When IPC-A-610 is cited or required by contract as a stand-alone docuemnt for inspetior and/or acceptance, the requirement of J-STD-001 <title> do not apply (unless separately and specifically required).

In the event of conflict, the following order of precedence applies:

1. Procurement as agreed and documented between customer and vendor.
2. Master drawing or master assembly drawing reflecting the customers detailed requirements.
3. When invoed by the customer or per contractual agreement, IPC-A-610.
4. Other documents to extent specified by the customer.

Both J-STD-001C and IPC-A-610C have this following statement, with only minor grammatical variances:
. . . When J-STD-001 and IPC-A-610 or other related documents are cited, the order of precedence is to be defined i the procurement documents.




>>> "Howieson, Rick" <[log in to unmask]> 03/08/00 05:57PM >>>
Careful what you say, Jack. Your first paragraph indicates standards are
on the bottom of the totem pole. If we violate ANYTHING in Mil-PRF-55110
or Mil-PRF-31032 regardless of what the procuring activity states, we
cannot certify the boards to any of these specs WITHOUT approval from
the qualifying activity.
Rick Howieson
GTC

>-----Original Message-----
>From:  Jack Crawford [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] 
>Sent:  Wednesday, March 08, 2000 4:37 PM
>To:    [log in to unmask] 
>Subject:       Re: [TN] Running of Jumper wire...
>
>When referencing standards, it is also important to remember that there is an
>order of precedence in requirements.  Words of a contract/purchase agreement
>rule first, followed by approved drawings, followed by the standard.  So
>anything agreed to by customer/supplier (and of course product engineers)
>would take precedence over the 610 requirement.
>
>Second is a bit of good news about jumper wire guidelines in IPC-7721 Repair
>and Modification of Printed Boards and Electronic Assemblies.  Procedures 6.1
>and 6.2.1 (both about jumpers) are at the printer and will be mailed to
>everyone that has purchased an IPC-7721 and returned their registration card.
> There are a couple of other procedures that had tweaks, the acknowledgment
>pages now include those people whose last name starts with the letter C (ok,
>we goofed the first time), and of course the Table of Contents pages had to
>be updated.
>
>The developing task groups for the repair and rework guides will be meeting
>next week at APEX (www.apex2000.org) to continue work on some additional
>procedures.
>
>The IPC Repairability Subcommittee 7-34 is lead by Jeff Ferry, Circuit
>Technology Center, and Dan Foster, Electronic Training Advantage.
>
>The Repair and Modification Task Group 7-34a (IPC-7721 Repair and
>Modification of Printed Boards and Electronic Assemblies) is chaired by Jeff
>Ferry, Circuit Technology Center.
>
>The Component Removal and REplacement Task Group 7-34b (IPC-7711 Rework of
>Electronic Assemblies) is chaired by Dan Foster, Electronic Training
>Advantage, with Vice-Chair Peggi Blakley, Naval Surface Warfare Center -
>Crane Div.
>
>>>> Bill Butman <[log in to unmask]> 03/08/00 04:19PM >>>
>Hi Ken,
>
>As they say in the movies:  "here is my 2 cents".
>
>IPC-610C, Section 11.2.3, last paragraph prohibits
>wires, or staking tape, or adhesive from overhanging
>the edge of the PCB.  Thus, running a wire from one
>side of a PCB to the other, (over the edge) will
>violate this section.
>
>I understand the update of IPC-7721 will have a
>section on jumper wires that explains how to use
>"non-used" plated through holes for routing wires from
>one side to the other.  And the update will also
>document a method for drilling and sleeving a hole for
>the same purpose. (We use these techniques
>occasionally.)
>
>You can find these documented procedures at the
>circuittechctr.com, web site. The procedures are in
>our "guides" section  (bottom of home page), section
>6.
>
>I agree with Ed Valentine, if you have a unused
>through pin or lead, use it.  If  I were going to use
>a unused lead on a DIP, I'd isolate it from the
>component first.
>
>I have no experience using an "edge clip".
>
>I'll be interested to know how you solve your dilemma.
>
>thanx
>
>Bill
>
>--- "Edward J. Valentine" <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>> Ken - Can you use an edge clip?  Or, if you have an
>> unused pin on a DIP, use
>> that? There may be other "creative" options, but it
>> would depend on your
>> layout among other factors.  Food for thought,
>> anyways.
>>
>> Ed Valentine
>> Electronics Manufacturing Solutions
>> 8612 Mourning Dove Road, Raleigh, NC 27615
>> Phone: (919) 270-5145, Fax: (919) 847-9971
>> Email: [log in to unmask] 
>> Website: http://www.ems-consulting.com 
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Ken Patel <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 7:29 PM
>> Subject: [TN] Running of Jumper wire...
>>
>>
>> > Guys,
>> > Does IPC call out running a jumper wire at the
>> edge to take on the other
>> > side? I personally think no. We do not have holes
>> in the board to run it
>> on
>> > the other side.
>> >
>> > Does anyone has any inputs on the matter?
>> >
>> > re,
>> > Ken Patel
>> >
>_______________________________________________
>> > Ken Patel                       Phone:  (408)
>> 490-6804
>> > 1708 McCarthy Blvd.             Fax:    (408)
>> 490-6859
>> > Milpitas, CA 95035              Beeper: (888)
>> 769-1808

##############################################################
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
##############################################################