IPC-600-6012 Archives

September 2002

IPC-600-6012@IPC.ORG
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date:
Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:05:51 -0500
Content-Disposition:
inline
Reply-To:
"(Combined Forum of D-33a and 7-31a Subcommittees)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Proposed Change to Acceptance Criteria for Lifted Lands
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Sender:
IPC-600-6012 Mail Forum<[log in to unmask]>
From:
Nick Koop <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines) 
Not being directly on 6012 maybe only gives me a half a vote, but it seems reasonable.

>>> [log in to unmask] 09/27/02 04:40PM >>>
Colleagues,

IPC would like a task group disposition on the following comment for the IPC-6012 B Revision effort.

Ted Edwards of Dynaco Corporation has proposed rebuilding paragraph 3.3.4 in the IPC-6012B 2nd Working Draft relative to allowances for Lifted Lands to read:

When visually examined in accordance with 3.3, the finished board shall not exhibit any lifted lands unless agreed upon between user and supplier.

Reason for Recommended Change:  On thick boards with thick plating requirements, if a HASL finished is used there almost always exists lifted lands and this statement would mean that they would all have to be scrapped.

Your reply is appreciated.

Regards,

John Perry
IPC

ATOM RSS1 RSS2