TECHNET Archives

December 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:
Bev Christian <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Bev Christian <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:58:58 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
Doug,
My former employer did not use ROSE for production monitoring.  I know at least one board supplier provided SEC readings with every lot of bare boards.  Most component manufacturers are good (clean components) , but some are still sketchy.
Bev

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Douglas Pauls
Sent: December 4, 2015 11:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] ROSE on No-Clean Assemblies

Good morning all,

As you wrestle with Dave's element question, I have a question or questions for you.

For those of you who are manufacturing product using no-clean technology and no cleaning, Do you do ROSE testing on the no-clean units and if so, do you consider the ROSE tested assembly still viable or is it scrapped?

If you want to reply off-channel, that is fine.  Thanks.


Doug Pauls
Principal Materials and Process Engineer Rockwell Collins


______________________________________________________________________
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