For future reference, many companies (customers) are able to provide .step files of completed assemblies which, if the component library is accurate, would allow you to spot these early.

I use 3D printing on NPI before they even place the board order with the fab house! 

Ed Popielarski
Engineering Manager


                               970 NE 21st Ct.
                              Oak Harbor, Wa. 98277

                              Ph: 360-675-1322
                              Fx: 206-624-0695
                              Cl: 949-581-6601



       “It's one kind of victory to slay a beast, move a mountain, and cross a chasm, but it's another kind altogether to realize that the beast, the mountain, and the chasm were of your own design.”
https://maps.google.com/maps/myplaces?hl=en&ll=48.315753,-122.643578&spn=0.011188,0.033023&ctz=420&t=m&z=16&iwloc=A


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Gregory
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] IPC-A-610

Yeah, "sh'..tuff" happens all the time. As a CM we see interesting things from many different designers. It doesn't matter if it's a start-up company or some well established one that you would think wouldn't make many mistakes, but it happens. Since I do a lot of the labor quotes, I get to see things ahead of time. Sometimes I catch stuff, sometimes I don't. It all depends on how fast they want the quote turned around and how much time I get to spend with the data. Many of our customers want things turned on a dime.

Here's one of the more recent things that got by me. I looked at the BOM and gerbers, and nothing seemed strange at all, pretty simple looking board actually, but when it came time to build it we discovered that there was component spacing problems all over the board:

http://stevezeva.homestead.com/Cap_interference.jpg

You can see that the tantalum and electrolytic cap barely fit next to each other, but they had one of the tantalums sitting beneath the connector body...well that wasn't going to work. So with the judicious use of a dremel and exacto knife I was able to modify the connector so that they could get the prototypes and check everything else out with the the board.

http://stevezeva.homestead.com/Cap_Interference_Fix.jpg

Of course I document everything with photos for feedback, and the design was corrected on the next revision. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. It's what makes the job interesting...

Steve

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Stadem, Richard D. < [log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Agreed. A designer can do whatever they wish. The assembler's only 
> real responsibility is to build it per print.
> But it is still a good business practice to make a note of any "design 
> issues" and feed it back.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mattix, Dwight
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:47 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] IPC-A-610
>
> That's why I put a fab drawing note on prints with intent of protecting
> our suppliers from us. ;)    Says to the effect "Shall meet IPC Class x
> ,blah blah, except where precluded by original design"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack Olson
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 8:40 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] IPC-A-610
>
> That spec doesn't regulate what a designer chooses to do. It just 
> defines the acceptability of downstream processes like placement, soldering, etc.
> For the record, the designer can break every good guideline if he 
> wants to, as long as he doesn't hold the assembler responsible for the 
> result, thus the need for AABUS (As Agreed Between User and Supplier) 
> UNLESS your condition was caused by the assembler placing the caps or 
> connector INCORRECTLY, you should maybe get a signed waiver for the 
> design to CYA
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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 and any attachments are only for use by the intended
recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise private information. Any unauthorized use, reproduction, dissemination, distribution or other disclosure of the contents of this e-mail or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. 


______________________________________________________________________
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] 
______________________________________________________________________