I don't see what's annoying you, Ruby. I've never read this IPC standard
before, I opened it today, took me just some 20 minutes to scan the
content, and I must say it's a great paper! Everything crystal clear
(with the exception below). If you are not used to read standards,
however, you may be bored and find it complicated.
I have a question about the EMC chapter 1.4.3. Here, the standard says
that EMC function is not consistent because of IMC growth. Why? Isn't
that dependent on the choice of material. We use a lot of silicon
gaskets filled with metal. These work as EMC antileakage, and I can't
see why they should not work with Isn. Likewise with tinned beryllium
bronze spring rings. And more combinations...
Furthermore, the paper illustrates a lot by means of LOM pictures,
that's good, but what about adding some typical SEM images to illustrate
typical microstructure? LOM pics are oftenly so "insipid", to use a
gastronomic expression. While (good) SEM images tell initiated a lot.
Ingemar Hernefjord
Ericsson Microwave Systems
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dennis Fritz
Sent: den 30 augusti 2006 17:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Does anyone else on Technet find this situation beyond
c omprehension?
Guys,
This discussion of standards development is not rocket science. IPC
committees openly post their drafts for public review. Either the
drafts from 003
Solderability or 4554 Immersion Tin are available for public review on
the committee home pages. Standard 4554 for immersion tin is being
developed in committee 4-14 Plating Processes. If anyone wants to see
what Rudi calls "incomprehensible" go to
_http://members.ipc.org/committee/drafts/4-14_d_IPC-4554%20-%20FinalDraf
t%20II
I%205-5-06.pdf_
(http://members.ipc.org/committee/drafts/4-14_d_IPC-4554%20-%20FinalDraf
t%20III%205-5-06.pdf)
And make your own judgement. Then, I hope you will make CONSTRUCTIVE
comments to the hard working volunteer committees developing these
standards.
Denny Fritz
MacDermid
In a message dated 8/30/2006 9:57:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
One can find oneself in a situation where they are not able to
comprehend the original message well enough to translate it into
something more understandable for others. In such a situation, what can
you do but state that the message is imcomprehensible, at least to you,
and insist on further clarification before approving?
---------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------
|
