As out-going TAEC chair and past chair of 7-10, I'll put my 2-cents in:
The concerns mentioned in this thread are all certainly known issues. There are at least a couple ideas floating around at IPC about the "fix". Which one(s), if any, get traction....yet to be seen
IPC is an organization of volunteers.
At some point in time, there was a group of volunteers in an OTG (originating task group) that was interested enough to volunteer their time to a sub task group for the purpose of developing a Test Method.
The resulting test method is usually useful, but not always useful enough to discriminate with respect to the OTGs purpose.
IIF the OTG decided to adopt the method with something like "item shall meet XYZ when tested IAW IPC-TM-650 method 1.2.3" then the method is "IN" a standard. (although remember divergent semantics of the word "standard")
In some cases, Test Methods were developed by Task Groups, even OTGs that are long gone, or at least not currently active. In the case of no OTG listing, many times there wasn't one. The method "dropped from the sky" (borrowed from Trace Labs, Mil/DoD, Bellcore, or other source).
So, 7-11 (or IPC staff) have some unpublished information about warm-bodies (volunteers) that might be able to support a method, or reaffirm it if necessary.
Bottom line is that one cannot traverse the IPC specification tree by starting at a leaf (test method).
If you're trying to broadly use the IPC standards, these references are very helpful:
Specification tree:
http://www.ipc.org/4.0_Knowledge/4.1_Standards/SpecTree.pdf
(Victor, the laminate spec you're looking for is probably 4101)
Committee tree:
http://www.ipc.org/CommitteePage.aspx
Best regards,
Chris
Chris Mahanna
Robisan Laboratory Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 12:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
Thanks, Joe, for that information, but "Each of the methods have an originating task group defined in the upper right hand corner of the method" is not quite true!
Within the TMs themselves the originating task group on most of them is described as "N/A".
Therein lies the problem, and thus the reason I stated to direct any questions to the "gatekeeper".
Each TM should have SOME task group defined, in order to direct questions such as Victor's to the correct task group.
Very few of the TMs actually have anything other than "N/A".
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 10:34 AM
To: Stadem, Richard D; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
As I am the chair of the 7-11 Test Methods SC, let me state for the record that our group is merely the gatekeeper for the TM-650 methods manual.
Methods are submitted by various task groups for our review and subsequent adoption into the methods manual. Each of the methods have an originating task group defined in the upper right hand corner of the method. Whoever is defined in that section is the owner of a given method.
If I understand Victors question, he wants to know why the methods don't reference a particular standard. The test methods only define a procedure for how to conduct a specific test. Sometimes methods are called out or are referenced by a standard, but not always. There are a lot of test methods that aren't called out in IPC standards, but are still relevant for evaluating different aspects of printed board and assembly production.
Methods themselves are not standards and therefore do not call out specific pass / fail criteria. Usually such criteria, assuming a method is called out in a spec, can only be found in the spec.
As to your specific method references below, you can find them here:
http://www.ipc.org/test-methods.aspx
2.1.1 is owned by 7-12 Microsectioning SC, the current chair of this group is Russ Shepherd, NTS Anaheim
2.1.1.2A is a cancelled method because it either is no longer called in a spec or the Originating Task Group requested it be cancelled. D-33a owns this method.
2.6.8 is owned by D-33a Rigid Printed Board Performance TG, currently co-chaired by Randy Reed, Reed Consultancy, LLC and Mark Buechner, BAE Systems
I would encourage you to contact these gents if you have specific questions / concerns about the methods you reference. I know the men listed and they're all good eggs and knowledgeable on the subject matter.
I hope this helps.
Best Regards,
Joe Russeau
Process Analyst
Precision Analytical Laboratory, Inc.
329 E. Firmin Street
Kokomo, IN 46902
P: (765) 252-3970
F: (765) 252-3971
C: (765) 210-0953
E: [log in to unmask]
Visit us on the web at www.precisionanalysts.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Stadem, Richard D
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 10:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
Yes. On all standards, there is a committee listed. In the introduction.
For TM650, that group is identified as the Test Methods Subcommittee.
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 8:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]; Stadem, Richard D
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
Dell - Internal Use - Confidential
Richard,
Any idea who owns/responsible for TMs?
Victor,
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
There is a form on the next to last page of every single IPC standard........
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Douglas Pauls
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 7:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
Well Victor, if Technet cannot answer your question, your next step would be to pose the question to IPC Staff, such as John Perry, who is very involved with the IPC-6012 and associated board efforts. He can then direct your questions to the Leadership of A-600 for a response. That's what this old dinosaur would do....
Doug Pauls
Principal Materials and Process Engineer Rockwell Collins
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:49 AM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Fellow TechNetters:
>
> I did not receive responses to my initial inquiry. Therefore, I post
> once again. IMHO, Industry Standards are so convoluted that it takes a
> dinosaurs to interpret the documents much less draw correlation
> between the documents.
>
> Victor,
>
> From: Hernandez, Victor G
> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 12:37 PM
> To: 'TechNet E-Mail Forum' <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: Hernandez, Victor G <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
>
> Fellow TechNetters:
>
> What is the purpose of IPC-A-600 (J) if this standard document is
> not stated/mentioned/referenced in the above TMs.
> 2.1.1 section 5.4.3 Quality Observations,
> etc..............
> 2.1.1.2 section 5.2.3 Evaluation, etc..........
> 2.6.8 section 5.7.2 Examine for compliance,
> etc.......
>
> Is there a separate document for NEW Laminate Qualification.
>
> Victor,
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
