Pandora's can of worms, more likely! (NB Correctly apostrophised!)

Brian

On 07/03/2013 18:54, Douglas Pauls wrote:
> 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]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>

______________________________________________________________________
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] 
______________________________________________________________________