Since this is an opinion poll think I will chime in.

To me the first photo shows in the initial plate that there may have
been a rim void, and the subsequent metallization and copper plate has
bridged over the void.  As long as the minimum copper thickness has been
met this would be considered conforming.  The separation right at the
knee of the surface foil would also be allowed.  The second separation
could be a little more difficult to determine if it meets requirement.
Per figure 3-7 of 6012 the photo shows areas around the vertical edge of
the knee between the conductive plating and the Electrolytic copper
plate as being acceptable, table 3-9 supports this.  Additionally there
is no cracking into the remaining copper plate.

Denise
Denise J Chevalier
Amphenol Printed Circuits
Quality Engineer
Phone - 603-324-4530
Fax - 603-386-6442
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and contains confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please reply to the sender by
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brown,
Elaine
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

It is non-conforming for both the crack and the plating separation.
The second picture is not so clear cut.  If indeed the area at the knee
is separation it is rejectable. 
If it is differential microetching, it is not.  Hard to tell from the
photo. 
I do not think we have any criteria for burning.    

Elaine

-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris
Mahanna
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 1:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EXTERNAL: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll

Hi Everyone,

Attached is a picture of a thru-hole corner after thermal stress.  The
plating is pulse.  I believe the corner was 'burnt' because of the
geometry of the (conformant) negative etchback.  All the corners show
burn; some show blisters; only this one cracked.

In your opinion, what are the non-conformance(s) if any?


Thanks

Chris

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________