Bruce,
you have opened my left eye, good start after having these papers around me since more than 25 years without understanding the difference. Now I see that the gov people have their own sort of practical jokes...he-he. By the way, I have seen MIL STDs for womens intimate clothings, for pencils, for shoe laces, for razorblade holders, everything....just wondering when (or if) they are updated? Imagine a bra made of thick kaki or underware made of tarpaulin.
Thanks for answer, anyway
Ingemar
-----Original Message-----
From: Misner, Bruce [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: den 22 juni 2000 21:13
To: 'TechNet E-Mail Forum.'; 'Ingemar Hernefjord (EMW)'
Subject: RE: [TN] Repeted : MIL question
Ingemar,
Method 2010 is for visual requirements on monolithic devices; a single IC in
a package. If you put more than 1 element (an IC, a chip resistor, a chip
cap, a transistor die, a diode die, etc) in the same device (elements in a
single enclosure) then you inspect the whole thing to 2017. If you are
inspecting a passive element (chip resistor, chip cap or inductor) as a
stand alone element you use Method 2032, put it in a package with other
elements and then the mounting and interconnection of it all is inspected to
2017(device). By the way, stand alone transistor or diode die are inspected
to Mil Std 750, go figure.
If you are still confused, don't worry, so is the rest of the world. I
imagine the defense dept did it this way to confuse the enemy... and they
are us. Now that should be clear as mud.
Regards, Bruce
> ----------
> From: Ingemar Hernefjord
> (EMW)[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: TechNet E-Mail Forum.;Ingemar Hernefjord (EMW)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 4:06 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] Repeted : MIL question
>
> Silent as in a desert. I'll make another try here: anyone who uses
> MIL-STD-883 Method 2032.1 for inspection of wafers and chips? My question
> was: what's the difference between this one and Method 2010, 2017? Method
> 2032.1 have more pages, and more issues, but in many aspects they seem to
> be all the same. Hoped that some NASA, Grumman, Sandia or other guy had a
> clue. I also had a following question about MIL-STD-883 vs. ATL QCIM.
> Many seem to abandon MIL-STD for other norms.
>
> Sigh! I don't love MIL-STD either, but I have to deal with it sometimes.
> Double sigh!
>
>
> > Ingemar Hernefjord
> > Ericsson Microwave Systems
>
> ##############################################################
> 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
> ##############################################################
>
##############################################################
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
##############################################################
|
