Received: |
by ipchq.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0t5NHz-0000GtC; Tue, 17 Oct 95 20:27 CDT |
Old-Return-Path: |
<miso!ccmail.ca.boeing.com!magjf900> |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Oct 95 14:39:48 dst |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Cc: |
|
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 15: |
06:03 1996 |
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"6Gdiu2.0.vv7.yV5Xm"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Loop: |
|
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
As an assembly shop I would be against cancelling this test method
unless there is some better alternative that would replace it (and
data demonstrating that the alternative is at least as effective in
detecting PWBs that may not survive processing including rework).
I realize that the test method is manual and needs work, in fact a
whole new methodology may be required (a number of companies,
including ours; use a "3X-5X" solder dip for example).
Problem is PWAs do commonly undergo multiple reflows (wave + IR/Vapor
+ hand (2nd assembly) + rework) and we have to have some confidence
that they will survive.
Jim Maguire
Boeing Defense & Space Group.
(206)657-9063.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: rework simulation test method
Author: [log in to unmask] at esdigate
Date: 10/16/95 2:58 PM
The group that was suppose to rewrite this method had suggested that
this method be CANCELED.
Any comments from the membership?
|
|
|