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
Sender:
IPC-600-6012 Mail Forum<[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Proposed Change to Acceptance Criteria for Lif ted Lands
From:
"Benny Nilsson (EAB)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:23:07 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
"(Combined Forum of D-33a and 7-31a Subcommittees)" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines) 
Hello John. Does it realy need to be stated "agreed upon between user and supplier"? In my opinion "agreed upon...." is a part of "Approved PB Procurement Documentation" see Section 3.5 in -6011.

Begards Benny

-----Original Message-----
From: John Perry [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: den 27 september 2002 23:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [IPC-600-6012] Proposed Change to Acceptance Criteria for
Lifted Lands


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