TECHNET Archives

August 2000

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:
Roberts Jon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:23:44 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (74 lines)
To remove and replace usually means the go back through the cleaning portion
with possibly the same result.  Does not make sense to do that.   Ever since
CFC went away we been using cleaning solvents, high pressure wash, etc and
component manufactures marking can not always with stand the aggressive
cleaning.  We use to put varnish on IC to protect marking years and years
ago.  Might look at IPC Test Methods and see if anything is in there about
receiving inspection having to test component markings like the old
MIL-STD-208 series did.  Component spec hopefully can tell you the type of
ink or marking used and maybe that will lead to solvent compatibility issue
or non issue.    Just thoughts, Jon

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Ken Bloomquist [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Monday, August 14, 2000 12:43 PM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        [TN] Component Markings

Good Day Technetters,

I have searched the archives and couldn't find the answer to my question.

J-Std-001, 9.2.2, says that you can not deliberately alter, obliterate or
remove component markings. It goes on to say that random part marking
loss...... does not constitute deliberate obliteration. This doesn't say if
the later condition is OK.

We have one faction here that believes components need to have markings no
matter what. They want us to re-mark or remove and replace any components
that have had their markings degraded, due to the cleaning processes after
soldering.

I contend that we are doing more damage by removing and replacing these
components than just leaving them alone. These Class 3 assemblies are tested
and have traceability to the component level.

Replace, Re-mark or Leave Them Alone, that is the question!

Any information that could help load my cannons would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Ken Bloomquist
PRIMEX Aerospace Company
www.primextech.com

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2