TECHNET Archives

January 2020

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:
Douglas Pauls <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:31:53 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (66 lines)
Good afternoon Rich.

1.  Correct.  MIL-I-46058 is inactive for new designs, but not cancelled.
DSCC maintains the QPL.  Any vendor can qualify a new coating if it falls
into one of the five existing chemical families.
2.  For CC-830, yes, you would have to get the test report and verify
yourself that the test data meets the CC-830 requirements and that ALL of
the CC-830 tests have been passed.   There was discussion a few years back
of IPC being a certifying authority for in essence, a commercial QPL, but
the idea met with much resistance, but not perhaps to the level of rioting
villagers you describe.

*Douglas Pauls *| Principal Materials and Process Engr | Advanced
Operations Engineering

*COLLINS AEROSPACE*

400 Collins Road NE, MS 108-101, Cedar Rapids, IA  52498  USA

*Tel:* +1 319 295 2109 | *Mobile: *+1 319 431 3773

[log in to unmask]

[log in to unmask] for all Export Compliant Items


On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:20 PM Richard Kraszewski <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> So I realize this or a related question comes up each year on  Technet and
> likely  this has come up at committee meetings but here it goes again:
>
> 1.      While IPC WP-21 indicates that the QPL will not update to "new
> Technology"  (IE., UT & SC) it is still active for the original classes
> (AR, UR, SR, etc), CORRECT?
>       (With the ability to qualify new products to those
> previous/historical coating classes)
>
> 2.      For IPC CC 830 about the only choice one has to confirm that a
> coating meets the requirements of CC830  is to get a copy of the test
> report & data from the manufacturer CORRECT?
>       OTHER than running the testing yourself correct.
>        (I seem to recall a failed attempt ~5 years ago by the IPC to
> create their own CC830 classification list and service. If memory serves me
> correctly,  that idea was received with "pitchforks, buckets of hot tar and
> burning torches"  and died a quick death).
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Rich  Kraszewski
> Senior Staff Process Engineer
> Phone: (920) 969-6075
>
> * * * * * * * * CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE * * * * * * * *
>
> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential from Plexus Corp. and may
> contain information which is privileged, confidential, and/or protected by
> non-disclosure agreements.  They are intended solely for the use of the
> named addressee(s).  .  Any unauthorized use or disclosure may be
> unlawful.  If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, disclose,
> retain or reproduce all or any part of the information contained in this
> e-mail or any attachments If you have received this transmission in error,
> please destroy it and notify us immediately by return e-mail or by calling
> + 1 888 208 9005.
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2