TECHNET Archives

May 2018

TechNet@IPC.ORG

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 >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Daragh OLoughlin <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Daragh OLoughlin <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 26 May 2018 11:46:18 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Can anyone shed some light on the rationale behind the Post Burn-In 96 hr window defined in MIL-STD-833 Method 1015? I am trying to understand this, to determine the risk of excluding this requirement from the Burn-In process in a high reliability IPC Class 3 application. 

Daragh OLoughlin
Lead NPI Engineer - Implant Electronics

Cochlear Limited
12 Helen Street
Newstead QLD 4006
AUSTRALIA

Email: [log in to unmask]
www.cochlear.com


==============================================

"The information contained in this e-mail message may be confidential information, and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by return email and delete the original message."

ATOM RSS1 RSS2