TECHNET Archives

April 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:
Ioan Tempea <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Ioan Tempea <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:38:38 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
Dear Technos,

 

What would be a reasonable false calls level? We are running a Mirtec table top and the latest report I've run shows a 50% ratio between the false calls count and the inspected PCBs count. I believe you've guessed, everything started when we've found missing components in test on boards that passed AOI and we tend to blame too many false calls levels, so that the operator has to click OK so many times, that he's missing some real defects.

 

And a question that begs for offline answers, what AOI machines have you tested lately and what your winners are? Are they able to reliably inspect solder joints? What the false calls levels are? Have you had the occasion to test them in a high mix low volume environment?

 

Thank you,

 

Ioan Tempea, ing.
Ingénieur Principal de Fabrication / Senior Manufacturing Engineer
T | 450.967.7100 ext.244
E | [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  
W | www.digico.cc <http://www.digico.cc/> 

 
 N'imprimer que si nécessaire - Print only if you must

 


______________________________________________________________________
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