TECHNET Archives

July 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:
"Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)
Date:
Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:31:53 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
Fee FIFO (first in, first out) Fum
Better have another Rum
If you state what you wish
They'll tell you go FISH (first in, still here)
Dewey

 

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Blair Hogg
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] Component Date Code Restrictions

To avoid solderability issues we place restrictions on our suppliers that electronic components must be newer than a specific age in order to be accepted. Most comply without an issue, however for obsolete items we don;t have much choice. We don't perform any solderability testing in-house. Our current specification is 18 months for through hole parts and 12 months for SMT parts. 

Do any other companies use similar requirements? My purchasing group brings this up every so often but we are hesitant to change our requirement. I don't know why this is that uch of an issue with suppliers, if they are practicing first in first out inventory then components in their stock shouldn't be too old.

Thanks,

Blair

______________________________________________________________________
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