Yes, the Freescale website is very good in that respect - thank you to
Doug for pointing that one out! It took almost no time to gather all
the Freescale reports that I needed. It took longer to isolate the PN's
I needed in my own system.
Now if only every company would do that, or even every company that is
on that IPC list that David gave a link for. I have gone thru that list
to several of the major companies that we deal with, and checked their
websites. Tyco mentioned that they are working towards publishing data
although it is not available yet, but none of the other companies really
even seemed to acknowledge it on their website.
Sigh.
8 down, 6,000 to go.
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Bergman
Sent: August 3, 2006 12:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [LF] FW: [LF] IPC-1752
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Kubin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:08 PM
To: David Bergman; [log in to unmask]; Tom Davenport
Cc: Fern Abrams; Dieter Bergman
Subject: RE: [LF] IPC-1752
Folks: actually, a number of companies have been using IPC-1752 for some
time, even while it was in a draft state- this greatly helped our
development efforts with "real" data. Freescale Semiconductor is one
who has done an outstanding job, in my opinion. IPC-1752 declarations
are available from their website-
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?nodeId=06lR7N&tid=
FSH
if you search for a part, you can view details and select a "Product
Content Report", which provides an IPC-1752-2 declaration. Here is an
example:
http://www.freescale.com/mcds/DSP56F802TA80E.pdf
As David has indicated, support is growing. Yes, many companies have
already implemented proprietary forms/formats, but going forward there
is a clear case for standards adoption. In the case that Genny Gibbard
indicated below (sorry, not sure what company you are with), it may not
be necessary to re-request lower level supplier data in the IPC-1752
format, provided that you can provide the information needed to satisfy
your customer's request. Transitions are always problematic and not
without cost and effort- however, in this case there is clear value in
adopting the standard that will eventually reduce the overall burden
throughout the supply chain. We are also working with the IEC TC111
Material Declaration team (WG1) to promote as an international standard.
Regards, Richard.
Richard Kubin
Chair, IPC 2-18 Committee
Vice President, E2open, Inc.
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +1-650-381-3977
-----Original Message-----
From: David Bergman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]; Tom Davenport
Cc: [log in to unmask]; Richard Kubin; Dieter Bergman
Subject: RE: [LF] IPC-1752
I am not sure how anyone could have offered the format for two years,
since it was not a standard at that point; and as you note it was not
published until 2006. There continues to be a growing interest in
support for the standard
http://members.ipc.org/committee/drafts/1752_Support.asp . My
assumption is that as the industry wishes to reduce it's pain and cost,
they will migrate to the standard. I have recently heard anecdotes
about companies refusing to offer all the other formats and just
offering the 1752. Efforts continue to work to integrate the form into
business practices globally through RosettaNet and through localized
translations.
Best regards,
Dave
David W. Bergman, CAE
Vice President, Standards, Technology and International Relations IPC
3000 Lakeside Drive # 309S Bannockburn, IL 60015 Phone 847-597-2840 Fax
847-615-5640 Mobile 847-867-1388 Main 847-615-7100
email [log in to unmask] www.ipc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Davenport
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 4:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] IPC-1752
We are a component supplier. I have offered the IPC-1752 format for two
years and not one, yes, not one customer has requested this format. The
formats that have been requested are too numerous to count, but about 25
different ones. I believe IPC-1752 came too late to the party as its
formal approval was not until early 2006(?).
Best regards,
Tom Davenport
VP Quality, Reliability and Technology
Ramtron International Corporation
1-719-481-7139
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Genny Gibbard
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [LF] IPC-1752
Has anyone noticed any suppliers volunteering to supply their compliance
data in this format in a very general way? ie publishing it on their
website? We have a large number of C of C's on file, in whatever format
the supplier chose to use, and now it looks like a customer is going to
require us to use this standard. A lot of duplication of work on the
part of the person who has been collecting these documents for our
files to go back to all our suppliers and get this format... Sigh.
I've been hoping this would start catching on in the industry, and
companies might even start volunteering to publish this format on their
website.
Genny
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
