Good morning/afternoon/evening everyone,

At the last round of technical meetings at Apex, I took the liberty of
signing you all up for various committee work.  As I tell the co-op
students I mentor, "you go to meetings to protect yourself from action
items".  Since most of you were not there, you got assigned action items.

This question goes to those individuals tasked with determining if a
proposed or existing manufacturing process has "sufficient" materials and
process compatibility.  You get to determine if a new process or an
existing process has a propensity for electrochemical failure mechanisms
(leakage, corrosion, dendritic growth).  You must choose the test vehicle
by which to demonstrate this compatibility for J-STD-001, and surface
insulation resistance testing is to be the metric.

Question 1:
Do you use actual hardware and your existing life/reliability tests under
humid conditions,
OR
Do you use a standardized test vehicle from the IPC, representative of your
assembly technology?

Question 2:
If you choose to use a standardized test vehicle, would you prefer to use
an off the shelf design, which may be a stretch to represent your
technology,
OR
if you were told how to do it, would you build your own test vehicle from a
menu of acceptable SIR test patterns, that WAS representative of your
product?


I ask these questions, and more will follow, because, fool that I am, I
agreed to re-write the Appendix B testing currently in J-STD-001C as part
of the Rev D effort.  Seems I just can't say no to Teresa Rowe.  Rev D, as
it is now, will make such Appendix B testing manditory.  The drawbacks of
previous test approaches have always been the applicability of the
standardized test substrates (e.g IPC-B-36) to actual product.

Graham Naisbitt, a valued contributor to Technet, is leading a similar
effort for the IEC and we would like to co-ordinate efforts and come to a
consensus for testing.  We are talking about the best ways to do process
qualification/validation testing.  The first step is to come to agreement
on what substrate to test.  The discussion is also ongoing on IPC's SIRNet
forum.  Graham has a proposed test vehicle , but in looking at it, there
would be a number of changes that I would want to see from Rockwell's
perspective to make it more representative of our product.  I imagine the
same could be said of the rest of you, especially in the high rel world.

I look forward to the responses.  If you prefer to keep the responses
private, communicate with me off-line.  I need to have a draft for review
by the May 6-7 meetings.

Thank you.

Doug Pauls, who needs his head examined
Rockwell Collins

---------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------