TECHNET Archives

December 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:
Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:10:38 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (112 lines)
Hi Don,

Yes it violates the 50% spacing requirement. 

I'll post s couple of pictures as soon as I remember how.

Sincerely,  

 

Paul Reid 

Program Coordinator  

PWB Interconnect Solutions Inc. 
235 Stafford Rd., West, Unit 103 
Nepean, Ontario Canada, K2H 9C1 

613 596 4244 ext. 229  

Skype paul_reid_pwb 
[log in to unmask] 

 


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Vischulis
Sent: December 6, 2013 10:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing

Siting on an airplane waiting for the door to close. You found a
potential defect. It might be crazing or it might be a void in the
laminate. I believe both conditions are covered in the spec. The next
question is if the defect is large enough to be called a reject able
condition. 

Don Vischulis
Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 5, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I was just on a conference call where we found crazing (a separation
> between glass fibers and the epoxy system), in a microsection. The
> fabricator stated that this had to be evaluated looking at a board
> macroscopically and could not be evaluated microscopically. 
> 
> 
> 
> Crazing is called out in IPC-A- 600 in section 2, paragraph 2.3.2 page
> 18, which is "Externally Observable Characteristics". In A-600 there
is
> picture of a microsection showing the defect but it states that a
> microsection is not required.
> 
> 
> 
> In IPC 6012-2010 crazing is call out in 3.3.2.2, page 12, which states
> (I am paraphrasing), "Crazing shall not violate greater than 50% of
the
> distance between adjacent conductors..." The document then refers to
IPC
> A 600.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your take on their argument that crazing should not be
evaluated
> microscopically as per IPC?  
> 
> 
> 
> Sincerely, 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Reid 
> 
> Program Coordinator 
> 
> PWB Interconnect Solutions Inc. 
> 235 Stafford Rd., West, Unit 103 
> Nepean, Ontario Canada, K2H 9C1 
> 
> 613 596 4244 ext. 229  
> 
> Skype paul_reid_pwb 
> [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] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2