Technetters, Steve, Ioan . . .
The bottom line re: Process Indicators. Who is your customer? The
touch-up/doesn't-need-touch-up argument has been around since Process
Indicator was originally defined and will probably outlast us or until -610
renames the "less than perfect" condition. If you are the OEM, i.e. the
folks assembling and installing the CCAs that will never be seen by the end
user, then demonstrate to mfg and QA/QC how the cost of unnecessary rework
impacts their bonus &/or pay plan. But, if you are the CM that ships the
CCAs to the OEM, then maybe you should consider touchup based on how
knowledgeable your customer is. Your customer's assembly, test techs, and
engineers may not be well versed in IPC-A-610; they may see the pin holes,
low volume, embedded solder (sodder) balls, or less than 75% fill on a
backplane through hole and wonder who the butcher shop was that assembled
these parts at a premium.
Good luck . . .
Loa
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tempea, Ioan
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 6:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Process Indicators...
Hi Steve,
this is an eternal fight between the production and QC. I suggest that you
get an IPC-610 diploma yourself, pretty sure you'll score 100% at the exam.
Since this will probably rank you higher than the inspectors, you will have
more credibility and the people in charge will start listening to you.
Otherwise the touch up will go on and on and on.
I did it and it works.
Regards,
Ioan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Gregory
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] Process Indicators...
>
> Hi All!!
>
> I've been getting into a number of debates about "Process Indicators" as
> described in the IPC-610...mostly with our inspectors. I know their hearts
> are
> in the right place, but it seems that many times they will reject the
> assemblies with "Process Indicators" back to our operators to touch them
> up, so that
> they look more like the "Target Condition", to be more cosmetically
> pleasing.
>
> I've tried to explain things as best I can, but find that sometimes our
> operators are touching up way more solder joints than they need
> too...they're
> being "trained", as it were, by our inspectors. The operators know that if
> something isn't "pretty" enough, it's going to come back to them...so
> they're
> putting more labor into product than they should.
>
> I'm trying to find some way, any way, to be able to show our inspectors
> that
> to touch-up something because it doesn't look like the target condition,
> doesn't mean one is making things any better...I understand that beauty is
> in
> the eye of beholder.
>
> There was some talk in the past about the Intermetallic Layer being
> thickened during subsequent reflow cycles, and causing fractures, but
> Werner said
> that he's never seen a failure because of a thick Intermetallic layer.
>
> Process Indicators may happen as spelled out in the -610, sometimes not
> only
> because of the assembly process, but because of the design, or other
> factors.
>
> I look at Process Indicators as a "Flag" to investigate whether or not the
> issues can be addressed and resolved properly, if they can't be resolved,
> then
> it's not a defect. Am I wrong about this?
>
> As always, TIA!
>
> -Steve Gregory-
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
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
847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
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 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------
|
