TECHNET Archives

June 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:
Richard Kraszewski <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Richard Kraszewski <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:27:48 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
Would anyone like to share their thoughts on automated coating inspection?
The good, the bad and or the ugly. 

Initial  experience that I have had with them leaves me with the impression  that:

	> That are useful to indicate if there is complete lack of coating  on a PCA or some specific PCA regions.
	> can indicate if there is sizable (ytbd)  violation of a keep out zone.
	> not the best to verify  coverage on some items  such as fine pitch QFP leads or  other small SM type components
	>  except for the case of select spots on a PCA also not the best to use as general tool to locate thick fillets or thin coatings on a PCA

As I said above, any thoughts (profound, rants or other) on this matter would be appreciated. 

Thanks in advance


Rich Kraszewski /PLEXUS 

______________________________________________________________________
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