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:
PIRES Fabrice <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, PIRES Fabrice <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:03:48 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
I have performed myself many ROSE measurements on 3 different equipment types. My conclusion on equivalent factor are very similar to the brian's ones. Even if I 've noticed some equipments give systematically higher values than others, factors change a lot from one assembly process to another.

Fabrice Pires

----- Message d'origine -----
De: Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
Env: jeudi 16 février 2012 23:51
À: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Objet: Re: [TN] Correlation Factors for ROSE Testing


These 'equivalence factors' were about the most stupid thing that ever
came out of MIL specs (MIL-P-28809A, to be precise). They were
absolutely meaningless, like calibrating a micrometer with a wooden foot
rule. It tried to reduce the instruments down to the level of the spray
from a wash-bottle test which alone could easily introduce errors of 48%
or more. Furthermore, the instruments it refers to were those of 1981,
which bear absolutely no resemblance to those marketed today.

I refer you to Bergendahl and Dunn 'Evaluation of Test Equipment for the
Detection of Contamination on Electronic Circuits', European Space
Agency Technical Memorandum ESA STM-234, Paris (1984). This document not
only verifies that the notion is nonsense, but that the so-called
'equivalence factors' for each instrument varies greatly with both the
flux and cleaning process used.

This notion of 'equivalence factor' should be relegated to the
oubliettes once and for all.

Brian

On 16/02/2012 21:59, 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]
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
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