correct me if i am wrong, if you use sampling plan... your sample size of
space PWA will never ever large enough, 100% inspection still needed,
visual or x-ray or otherwise... scary we are still talk about this...
cover my head to avoid anything falling off from the sky... sampling plan
- unless you try to group your space gear together with your commercial
stuff - try to avoid 100% inspection... hmm,sampling plan... how that
happen for space gear?
> 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??
>>
>