Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uHtGP-0000D5C; Fri, 10 May 96 09:33 CDT |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 10 May 1996 10:39:56 -0400 |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"9d8Wl3.0.9NI.4Fran"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Wed May 15 19: |
38:05 1996 |
X-Loop: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Good Morning All,
In a message dated 96-05-09 16:17:13 EDT, Lyn Lynch wrote:
> Look at the QPL for MIL-C-46058. This won't give you performance
> results, but it will tell you which coatings have passed the
> performance requirements sections of the specification. Part of 46058
> requires humidity exposure testing per MIL STD 810. I believe this
> testing is done with the power off.
The testing in MIL-I-46058 is done per MIL-STD-202, method 106, which is a
cyclical temperature humidity profile (25C to 65C, 90% RH, twice per day).
During all times when measurements are not being made, there is a polarizing
voltage of 100 volts DC applied. Measurements are made at 500 volts DC.
>
> As far as powered-up, high moisture environmental test results, I
> suspect that you would need to test your specific design for
> performance.
I agree, but the question become how to test. We deal with a number of
customers who have their own burn-in tests under various accelerating
conditions. Some do high temp, high humidity, some cyclical, some freezing.
It all depends on what will best find your infant mortality cases.
Doug Pauls
CSL
|
|
|