TECHNET Archives

March 2004

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:
- Bogert <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Mon, 8 Mar 2004 16:55:19 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines)
As a Class 3 customer we are considering mandating transition from Type UR to Type AR conformal coating, to make it easier to replace failed components.  Are there any Class 3 users of Type AR coating?  What is track record for using Type AR?  Are there any compatibility issues with certain types of solder masks?  Any input you have would help.  Another advantage with AR would be for returned equipment.  The OEM could remove all the coating from an assembly using alcohol, then perform 
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
-----------------------------------------------------
bed-of-nails testing to quickly identify failed components.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2