IPC-600-6012 Archives

April 2005

IPC-600-6012@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
IPC-600-6012<[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Combined Forum of D-33a and 7-31a Subcommittees <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:00:31 -0500
Reply-To:
Subject:
From:
Chris Mahanna <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Strictly from a metrology perspective, the following (well intended)
requirement will have very little meaning and would be rather counter
productive to those assessing conformance.

1% of the conductor surfaces for Class 3 and 5%
of the conductor surfaces for Class 1 and 2.

I would guesstimate the total uncertainty of this metric to be AT LEAST
+/-5% of conductive surfaces.  Therefore, if you are near the above
pass/fail thresholds, you have literally no confidence in the go/no go
decision.  We have this same problem with the 95% solderability requirement.
Luckily, with solderability, it doesn't usually come into play because
typically the results are <<5% or >>5%.

If my guesstimate is off-base let me know.
For a very nice treatment of how requirements like this put us in a bad
position see:
ILAC-G8:1996 "Guidelines on Assessment and Reporting of Compliance with a
Specification (based on measurements made in a laboratory)"

Chris Mahanna
Quality Manager
Robisan Laboratory Inc.
6502 E. 21st Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46219
317.353.6249 phone
317.917.2379 fax

ATOM RSS1 RSS2