Richard,
You are correct that there are some methods in the TM-650 that contain N/A.
I should have said "most" of the methods have an Originating Task Group
(OTG). 7-11 went through the methods manual about six years ago to clean it
up and to determine what methods still had active task groups and who owned
what method. The purpose was to place all methods on a 5 year review cycle.
Many of the methods were from the 70's, 80's and 90's and had not been
reviewed for several decades. Some of the methods were orphaned, which
meant that the OTG was no longer active. In those instances we tried to
find task groups to adopt them whose activities were closely aligned with
the orphaned method. Some methods were archived because we couldn't find
any group to take them on and they were not called out in any IPC spec.
Some methods were cancelled because they were no longer being used by
industry and weren't called out in any IPC spec.
Anyway, that is probably more information than most of you are wanting to
know but since the methods are used frequently throughout the entire
industry, it's probably not a bad update for everyone. Thank you for
keeping me straight Richard!
On a different note, I want to do a plug for 7-11 to encourage all of you to
join the task group. As of this APEX we finished our 5 year review of what
we call the Method Development Packet (MDP). Five years ago we decided to
take IPC methods to a higher level by requiring any group that submitted a
quantitative method to go through a Gauge R&R to validate that the method
met its intended purpose. We have been able to implement the MDP on a few
occasions and one of the major lessons in doing that is that 7-11 doesn't
always have the appropriate expertise to review all the variety of methods
we receive. So we need a wider base of experts to help us address when
methods come to us that we don't have folks on hand that understand its use
or intent. That all said, if you would be interested in joining 7-11 to
help us do data and method review, it would be greatly appreciated. This
means you Richard.... You would be a good one with your wide ranging
experience and your attention to detail. In fact, there are several good
ones on TechNet that would be great for helping 7-11.
Getting good data is critical as you all know and you can't get good data
with poor methods. I hope all of you will consider this opportunity to
engage in an area that could use your help, experience and knowledge.
Best Regards,
Joe Russeau
-----Original Message-----
From: Stadem, Richard D
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 11:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask] ; [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
|
