Hi Doug,
there should be no sub-designators. In case there is a special issue, you
have to use AABUS. On the other side. Aerospace is not always the same.
I think its worth to update the pictures, especially 10-122, 10-123 in 610
Picture 10-125 is a schematic one, but does not have a good relationship
to the reality.
I'm missing a description or picture about coverage/ noncoverage under
components. Discussion about coverage/noncoverage on topsides of
components.
Even if we don't do so, what about coating over flux?
Coating is used as a mitigation against shortcuts thru Tin Whisker Growth
on high reliable products. A hint may be placed in J1.
Regards
Frank
Industrial Engineering
Manager Production Technology
CIT A 610
REACH&RoHS-Manager DAs
Diehl Aerospace GmbH
Von: Douglas Pauls <[log in to unmask]>
An: <[log in to unmask]>
Datum: 07.03.2013 17:55
Betreff: Re: [TN] Conformal Coating and J1 / 610
Gesendet von: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
Thank you Ted.
J1 and 610 have Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 designations. If we
separated out coating requirements between Class 1, 2, 3, do you feel that
would be an adequate discriminator, or do you feel that we would need some
form of sub-designators, e.g. Class 3 Aerospace, Class 3 Medical, etc.?
That would be a Pandora's box in my opinion.
Doug Pauls
From: "Tontis, Theodore" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 03/07/2013 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [TN] Conformal Coating and J1 / 610
Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
I think there should be different levels identified for coating.
For example, the coating used on a flight control board is more critical
than the coating on an appliance. Both have a requirement for coating
but their acceptability requirements are different.
Also, acceptability requirement for reworked sections of coating.
Ted T.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Douglas Pauls
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 10:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Conformal Coating and J1 / 610
Hey, Wookies are people too.
But that is one of the anticipated areas for improvement - what kinds of
things are cosmetic only and don't impact reliability or quality, and
what things ARE, and what kinds of things are "process indicators".
And a commonly heard thing in the past few years are customers that want
the boards to be "purdy" and reject on cosmetics alone. That is one
area to address.
Doug Pauls
From: Lloyd Duso <[log in to unmask]>
To: "'TechNet E-Mail Forum'" <[log in to unmask]>,
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: 03/07/2013 10:17 AM
Subject: RE: [TN] Conformal Coating and J1 / 610
And the curse of Wookie breath if you want to include "cosmetic looks"
to the standard!!
Lloyd E Duso
Diamond-MT
Plant Manager
(814) 535-3505
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Douglas Pauls
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] Conformal Coating and J1 / 610
Greetings Citizens of the Galactic Empire. You have all been annexed
and the Republic is dissolved. You are now all my minions.
If you do not have an open can of toluene on YOUR desktop, you miss out
on some wonderful hallucinations.
At the recent IPC Apex meetings, as the Chairman of the Cleaning and
Coating groups, I was asked to tackle the conformal coat provisions in
IPC-J-STD-001 and IPC-A-610. I agreed (Proof positive I am an idiot).
Leave it alone Dewey. The coating groups have known for a long time
that these documents need attention, and the time is right at both of
those documents move towards Revision F.
To assist the small working group that is/will be working on this over
the next 6 months, I plan on making use of this forum to gather
information. I have always been impressed by the summary wisdom of
Technet.
So, first question:
1. With J-STD-001 and/or IPC-A-610, what areas are NOT presently
addressed, but need to be?
The Death Star will be dispatched to those areas not
participating.......
Doug Pauls
Chairman, IPC Cleaning and Coating Committees Galactic Emperor
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
.
Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail ist für den Absender rechtlich nicht verbindlich.
Informieren Sie uns bitte, wenn Sie diese E-Mail fälschlicherweise erhalten haben (Fax: +49-7551-891-4001). Bitte löschen Sie in diesem Fall die Nachricht. Jede Form der weiteren Benutzung ist untersagt.
.
The content of this e-mail is not legally binding upon the sender.
If this e-mail was transmitted to you by error, then please inform us accordingly (Fax: +49-7551-891-4001). In such case you are requested to erase the message. Any use of such e-mail message is strictly prohibited.
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
