LISTSERV - TECHNET Archives - LISTSERV.IPC.ORG

TECHNET Archives

November 2017

TechNet@IPC.ORG

	LISTSERV Archives
	TECHNET Home
	TECHNET November 2017

	Log In
	Register

	Subscribe or Unsubscribe

	Search Archives

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 >>]

Subject:	Re: IPC Standard, bare board vendor markings
From:	Jose A Rios <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:	TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Jose A Rios <[log in to unmask]>
Date:	Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:49:55 +0000
Content-Type:	text/plain
Parts/Attachments:	text/plain (67 lines)

Neither UL markings nor stackup markings are IPC requirements. Again go to 6012D section 3.3.5; its outlined there.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 30, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Stadem, Richard D <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

It doesn't necessarily have to be. Fabrication drawing notes, and notes on the assembly drawing normally take precedence over industry standards, as they are product-specific.
The fab drawing and the assembly drawing are the "Bible" thou shalt go by if there is a conflict. The exception to the order of precedence is generally something in the contract.

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [TN] IPC Standard, bare board vendor markings

Dell - Internal Use - Confidential

Is this statement supported (referenced) in an IPC/Industry Standard?

Victor,

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Golemme
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [TN] IPC Standard, bare board vendor markings

We deal with power boards and sealing surfaces. The note I've had success with is:

SUPPLIER SHALL MARK STACKUP AND DATE CODE, SUPPLIER NAME AND/OR TRADEMARK, AND UL FLAMMABILITY RATING IN NON-CONDUCTIVE INDELIBLE INK (COLOR WHITE OR BLACK). SUPPLIER SHALL NOT ADD ANY TEXT OR MARKING IN COPPER.

Stephen Golemme
Manufacturing Engineer, Makani
650-214-5647
solveforx.com/makani<http://solveforx.com/makani>

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jose A Rios <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Silk screen (or etched metal) are acceptable forms of marking.
Requirements for marking are basically legibility and traceability
(you basically have to be able to match the conformance coupons to the
boards they represent), by some method of serialization, which shall
include date code. UL marking is not an IPC requirement, if required
the board user must specify it. When using etched metal as marking, it
shall not violate min spacing to board conductors (same with
conductive inks). See 6012D 3.3.5 and its subsections.


José (Joey) Ríos, Sr QA Engineer
Mission Assurance Manager
Kavli Institute for Astrophysics & Space Research Massachusetts
Institute of Technology [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
(617)324-6272



On Nov 30, 2017, at 2:42 PM, [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Fellow TechNetters:

IPC-1066 covers Lead free markings/Symbols/:Labels, etc.   Which IPC
Standard covers bare board vendor logo/UL Rating/markings/production
date/REV and layer counts.   Is silk screening printing of information
acceptable beside etch from original external copper foil.

Victor,

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTSERV.IPC.ORG