 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uHuQB-0000ByC; Fri, 10 May 96 10:47 CDT |
| Content-Type: |
Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Old-Return-Path: |
<simon.ipc.org!pbni.attmail.com!PBN!PBN1!JMcGee> |
| Date: |
Fri, 10 May 1996 11:29:00 +0000 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Cc: |
pbni.attmail.com!PBN!PBN1!pbni!PBN!PBN1!SKelly |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| X-Status: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"Wap0F2.0.sXC.kKsan"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
simon.ipc.org!pbni.attmail.com!PBN!PBN1!JMcGee (John McGee) |
| From [log in to unmask] Wed May 15 19: |
40:02 1996 |
| Message-ID: |
<MS-MAILG-2.00-Note-pbni-JMcGee-0831743471> |
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Happy Friday Technetters-
I've been tasked with justifying the enforcement of a long established
internal requirement, here at PBNI. For as long as I can recall, we have
been considering solder flagging (aka icicles, solder spikes) a rejectable
condition, even when a solitary occurrence of as little as 0.8 mm.
(We based this rejection upon workmanship standards that we adopted
from a sister organization with a much more Class 3 and military
orientation).
As we are manufacturing Class 2 products, and are re-evaluating the adopted
requirements, this 'reject' comes into question. I'm reviewing
ANSI/J-STD-001A
and IPC-A-610B this morning, I find no reference to this condition other
than
that shown in Figure 4-17 of the latter.
I certainly don't object to loosening up on our present standard if it is
not
justifiable, but I can't help the feeling that I'm missing something. Am I
?
An anticipatory ...Thanks !
|
|
|
