TECHNET Archives

February 2012

TechNet@IPC.ORG

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

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Graham Naisbitt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Graham Naisbitt <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:00:42 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
Hi Rich

Why?

The whole idea of a correlation factor is nonsense which is why it was removed.

Consider: ALL systems SHOULD be capable of detecting a given amount of CALIBRATING solution that is CALIBRATED to a given amount of NaCl solution. If they can't detect that solution that has been injected into the test chamber that has reached and been tared to "zero", then you have a system that is RIRU = Rubbish In Rubbish Out.

Keep in mind that every degree of temperature change affects the value, so keeping everything under really close control is vital to avoid false positives or false negatives.

As said so many times before, this test method is ONLY really suited to keep your process under control and every process line will yield a different "cleanliness" value.

In closing - anyone who has asked for the "correlation factor" and are unable to grasp this method - direct them to the TechNet archives where there are almost acres of print on this topic.

I hope this helps but will be happy to answer any questions.

Graham N - Gen3 Systems

  
On 16 Feb 2012, at 19:59, Richard Kraszewski wrote:

> While I realize that IPC specifically and the industry in general, does not support the use of ROSE correlation factors for the various testers, I have a need to see the official document that at one time quoted these specifically allowed factors.
> 
> I took a cursory look though all 230 pages of IPC TR 583 and didn't see that table. 
> 
> I seem to recall a military specification that had that table. Was it 454? 28809, 2000?
> 
> Does anyone recall?
> 
> 
> Rich  Kraszewski / PLEXUS
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
> ______________________________________________________________________


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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2