Hello Steve,
I agree with you. If you are not having issues with circuit integrity or
associated reliability issues, then I would not rework unless it was
absolutely necessary. Cosmetic issues don't necessarily affect product
performance. Reworking, on the other hand, may cause more problems than it
solves, especially if you're reworking more areas than are needed. It
sounds as though a bit more education may be in order for your inspectors,
at least from the standpoint of knowing what other issues may be created
from excessive rework.
My 2 cents!
Joe Russeau
Process Analyst
Precision Analytical Laboratory
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
-----------------------------------------------------
|
