I'm pretty sure those are all covered elsewhere in the J-STD and other documents.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mattix, Dwight [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 10:45 AM
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Stadem, Richard D.
Subject: RE: [TN] J-STD-001 Space Addendum
Re: "...the processing of the board is the same for the entire PWA??"
Is that the only factor to ponder?
It would seem to be a first order effect to be sure.
What about other inputs? E.g.
Variability in surface factors affecting wetting:
- solderable finish variance from pwb to pwb?
- Variability in surface cleanliness from pwb to pwb, different lots of pwbs
- variability in component lead's finish and wettability, different component lots
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] J-STD-001 Space Addendum
Agreed. The cost is neglible.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Burke
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 7:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] J-STD-001 Space Addendum
Xray every one of them.
Best regards,
John Burke
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Joey Rios <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Sections 7.5.14, 15 and 16 outlines inspection of hidden solder joints, invoking the use of X-Ray in the Space Addendum. The standard does not explicitly prescribe a sampling extent, so, if an assembly has dozens of the same device, like 50-100 say of such devices (such as a bottom termination component) on a single PWA, is the expectation (J-STD intent) that each of the replicate devices are inspected by X-Ray?? Is that what the industry practices, or is sampling commonly invoked, since the processing of the board is the same for the entire PWA??
|
