TECHNET Archives

December 2019

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
X-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 19 Dec 2019 15:17:19 -0500
Reply-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Guy Ramsey <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
From:
Guy Ramsey <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
We have been exploring the J-STD-001G amendment.
We think we have a "qualified" process because:
1. We have monitored our process for several years and established an
action threshold at a level that is much lower than the old IPC limit.
Because with know the "normal" ROSE test result from or Ionograph.
2. We have never seen evidence of corrosion on assemblies returned from the
field. And have no reports of corrosion from customers.

But, we have not done any SIR testing in years. The mix of parts and part
densities have changed dramatically. We have no reason to trust the old SIR
test results.
We would like to gather objective evidence that our cleaning process is
compliant.

Any experience out there with the Magnalytix system?
Any advice about test coupon selection?
Anyone?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2