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:
Dave Kell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Thu, 31 Aug 2000 07:45:47 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (68 lines)
The following remarks are from our Chief Design Engineer:


Hi Steve,

I can verify for you that IPC-6013 is the appropriate document for all flex and Rigid Flex constructions.  IPC-6012 is the appropriate document for hardboards.

You may find it interesting to note that MIL-P-50884 was rendered inactive for new designs effective Feb 28,1999.  At this point, IPC-6013 appears to be the defacto standard for Flex.  IPC is working to have the 50884 specification canceled outright to help reduce confusion.  This is likely to be a protracted battle with the military.

In another comment on this site, it was noted that there is no oversight body when IPC specs are involved.  This is true, but I can tell you that there really wasn't much oversight from DSCC (the military) anyway.

When you select a vendor, you do need to make sure that you define on your drawing the class  (1, 2 or 3) you want your parts to conform to, and whether or not you want the group A testing done on a lot by lot basis or if you just want to use a certain class to define visual inspection criteria.  This is a cost and quality decision each customer must make.  Your vendor can give you cost impacts to adding extra coupons and associated tests.

When you are clear about this, the C of C from your vendor should reflect exactly what they are conforming to.

Thanks!!

Nick Koop
Chief Design Engineer
Minco Products, Inc
Vice Chair for the IPC-6013 sub-comittee



>>> [log in to unmask] 08/29/00 12:24PM >>>
Good afternoon all,

I'm in the middle of an internal debate regarding the use of the 2 IPC
fabrication documents as replacements for the old MIL-P-55110 and
MIL-P-50884.  The dilemma stems from the title of 50884 containing
"Rigid-Flex" while the title of IPC-6013 only contains "Flex".  The
questions are:  Is 6012 a replacement specification for 55110?  Is 6013 a
replacement specification for 50884?  I have a rigid-flex PCB, does one
specify 6012 for the rigid portion of the PCB and 6013 for the flex portion?
Thanks in advance for your inputs.

Steve Sauer
Manufacuturing Engineer
Xetron Corporation

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