TECHNET Archives

March 2013

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:
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Pete <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:00:33 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (9 lines)
I've already shown them that this doesn't meet spec.  It's not the only part that doesn't, we designed in a bunch that way, though not nearly as bad (a long story),  What I really need to tell them is WHY the spec says there should be an IPC-610 joint (or even a IPC7351 design, for that matter).  I've expressed my reliability concerns based on stress points, etc., but they look a part, and board, and solder, and think they can ship it and not worry.  We will have about 1200 of these installed, they aren't seeing a problem.

Pete

______________________________________________________________________
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