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:
Steve Gregory <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:12:36 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (62 lines)
Hi Angela!

I put your Word Doc with the pictures up on the page. Go to:

http://www.stevezeva.homestead.com and look for AngelasPaper.doc

In looking at the pictures, and talking this over with our Quality manager
here if we saw something like that on x-ray, we wouldn't ship them until they
were reworked.

Using IPC 610C section 6.5.3.1, and/or 12.4.11 to define your situation as a
"Process Indicator" is stretching things a bit in my opinion...this is much
more than a process indicator.

From my understanding, putting an assembly on a vibration table is to screen
out solder joint defects, not to shake solder splashes beneath parts
loose...also time on a vibration table is not the same as the environment that the
assembly is going to really see on a aircraft. I'd be afraid of these splashes
coming loose eventually.

One thing that I think you would reject these on, based on the wording in the
two -610 sections above, is splashes DO violate minimum electrical clearance.

As I said before I'd be afraid, very afraid to let this assembly ship...but
that's just ol' paranoid me.

-Steve Gregory-

Hi Steve.

I am in desperate need of help from the forum. I wanted you to post the
before and after pictures.

What you are viewing in the attachment is x-ray of solder splashes under a
leadless chip carrier, as well as resistors, before and after vibration.

The pictures were to prove the splashes  would not move and pose a hazard in
end environment. To answer the question before you ask, yes we are Military.

We are aware of what we did wrong, but my boss (Quality Manager) has given me
the task to be his enemy and find a reason to reject this and not treat it as
a process indicator (IPC 610C section 6.5.3.1). I could give you lots of more
detail,
but I don't want to take any more of your time. This is very time sensitive
and thousands are riding on the response.

Thank you very much.

Angela Gregor, Sr. Training Admin.



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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2