TECHNET Archives

May 2014

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:
Vladimir Igoshev <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Vladimir Igoshev <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 1 May 2014 10:12:11 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
Just to add my few cents, X-ray I'd s good thing to do if there is a gross problem (short or missing ball, or HoP) but it's pretty much useless if joints are cracked. 

Dye&Pry is quick inexpensive but not always conclusive. We normally advise our ‎customers to do it if they have several failed samples.

X-sectioning I'd still ‎the most appropriate test to carry out.

Well be happy to help.

Regards,

Vladimir Igoshev
SENTEC Testing Laboratory Inc.
11 Canadian Road, Unit 7
Scarborough, ON M1R 5G1
Phone: 647-495-8727
Cell: 416-899-1882
[log in to unmask]
www.sentec.ca
  Original Message  
From: Pete
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Reply To: TechNet E-Mail Forum
Subject: Re: [TN] Quick turn X-Ray or dye and pry?

Curt,

As far as a test lab, I've had good success with Celestica in the past.

As far as the testing you need, if you are doing FA on a BGA, X-ray is nice to see if you have a problem, Dye & Pry is nice to help understand the location and scope of the problem, but you really need cross section analysis (SEM/EDX) to analyze the failure mechanism. Skipping the cross section will save you time now bust cost you much more time over the next month.

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