TECHNET Archives

March 2015

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:
"McGlaughlin, Jeffrey A" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, McGlaughlin, Jeffrey A
Date:
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 19:45:25 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (79 lines)
Phil -

We addressed a similar situation by changing the acceptance note to read "RECEIVING INSPECTION TO CONFORM TO IPC-A-600 CLASS __."  The class is then entered based on the project requirements, which for us run the gamut from disposable commercial products to space applications.

Hope this helps,

Jeffrey McGlaughlin, C.I.D.
Engineering Designer
Avionics Systems & Tech Refersh
Office: 614.424.7582| Fax: 614.458.7582
[log in to unmask]
 
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus Ohio 43201-2693
http://www.battelle.org
 
Connect with Battelle
Facebook | LinkedIn
Twitter | YouTube
 
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return to the sender and delete from your computer system.


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nutting, Phil
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] bare board acceptability, IPC-600 versus IPC 6012

A vendor has found a conflict in one of our control documents.

The question from our vendor;

In Section 4 (Construction Requirements), points 1 and 2 appear to be somewhat in conflict.  We had ordered the boards under IPC-A-600 Class 2 before we received your document.  However, your specification says that while the boards will be accepted under IPC-A-600 Class 2, they need to be manufactured under IPC-6012 Class 2.  The IPC-6012 is a much tighter standard requiring test coupons, microsectioning and such.  They (and therefore we) are asking for confirmation that the 6012 manufacturing requirement is needed since the acceptance criteria is the less stringent standard.

The text from our document;


4.     Construction Requirements

1.... Acceptance of finished Printed Boards shall be in accordance with IPC-A-600, Class 2.

2.... Fabricate PCB in accordance with IPC-6012, Class 2 and use customer supplied data files when specified.

We have never micro-sectioned our boards nor used test coupons because they are very low volume, sometimes as few as five boards per order.  Also we still use a lot of thru-hole boards and the few surface mount boards are typically only 2 or 4 layer.

Our mix of boards go from control boards with 15 volt logic to multiplier boards that can see up to 180 kV.  This specific order is for 180 kV multiplier boards 0.06 inch thick, two layer with component silk screens, no solder mask and tin/lead HASL.

In scanning through the two IPC documents I'm having trouble figuring out how to match them up for comparison.

They just need clarification and I need to fix my document.  Your wisdom is greatly appreciated.

Phil Nutting  |  HVP Development Engineer   |  Excelitas Technologies Corp

Lab: +1 978.224.4332   |  Office: +1 978.224.4152
35 Congress St, Salem, MA  01970 USA
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.excelitas.com<http://www.excelitas.com/>


[Excelitas R_emailsig]


Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
________________________________
This email message and any attachments are confidential and proprietary to Excelitas Technologies Corp. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please inform the sender by replying to this email or sending a message to the sender and destroy the message and any attachments. Thank you.


______________________________________________________________________
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