My email said hidden solder joints, not every termination.
I only ‘think’ what the standard says, not trying to extrapolate anything further from it.

> On Sep 20, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Stadem, Richard D. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Why in the world are you thinking that each termination requires an individual X-ray?
> There is no reason for that.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jose A Rios
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 11:33 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] J-STD-001 Space Addendum
> 
> 6012 for example, does have different sampling allowances at different c=0 rates, depending on the attribute being evaluated.
> Independent of the sampling rate, my original question was more 'what does the 001 Space Addendum require'. It says to examine hidden solder joints by X-Ray, not debating that, it just doesn’t state the extent. So if you have 300 hidden solder joints on a PWA, would 001 require you do to 300 X-rays….. per PWA. Thats what I was trying to gage. I should’ve also asked to respondents to state whether they are suppliers or users, to try to balance the responses in the absence of a clear direction.
> 
> Thank you all….
> 
> 
>> On Sep 20, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Mattix, Dwight <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Tru dat.  
>> 
>> <runs off on tangential QE geekery>
>> These days, does anybody actually apply dynamic changes to sampling rates based on changing levels of conformance?  E.g. the old Mil-Std-105(?) sampling plan standard? 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jose A Rios [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 9:14 AM
>> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>; Mattix, Dwight <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [TN] J-STD-001 Space Addendum
>> 
>> What I meant is that when placing replicate devices from the same lot across a pwb during assembly, the cleaning, the paste screening process, reflow process, etc is common to that pwb, hence lending itself to sampling.
>> 
>>> On Sep 20, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Mattix, Dwight <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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??
>>