Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Type: |
Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii |
Old-Return-Path: |
<simon.ipc.org!pbni.attmail.com!PBN!PBN1!JMcGee> |
Date: |
Mon, 13 May 1996 12:53:00 +0000 |
From [log in to unmask] Wed May 15 20: |
09:43 1996 |
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: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"LS-mf2.0.u39.3ysbn"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
simon.ipc.org!pbni.attmail.com!PBN!PBN1!JMcGee (John McGee) |
X-Loop: |
|
Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uJ1Gu-0000CeC; Mon, 13 May 96 12:19 CDT |
Message-ID: |
<MS-MAILG-2.00-Note-pbni-JMcGee-0832008075> |
Resent-Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
(This is a re-do of an inquiry sent Friday, in case it went nowhere. I've
received
no replies and we had a mail-server problem, so I thought I'd try again)
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 !
|
|
|