TECHNET Archives

April 2019

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:
Re: -|EXT|- [TN] Bare Board Class Designation MUST be >= Assembly Class?
From:
Jack Olson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Jack Olson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 25 Apr 2019 10:16:30 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (10 lines) 
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 06:55:55 +0000, HEAD James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>The statement itself is pretty obvious: if you want a Class 3 PCBA then you have to have Class 3 for everything from the start.

The statement might seem obvious, but the IPC also specifically states,
"The use of one class for a specific characteristic does not mean that all other characteristics must meet the same class"

I can point to a reference for that (IPC-A-600 1.4)
If you can point to a reference to what seems obvious to you, it would be really helpful.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2