 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uzKly-0000OuC; Sat, 7 Sep 96 05:37 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Sat, 07 Sep 1996 06:47:16 -0400 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"cdcim2.0.yKB.42LCo"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Fri Sep 13 08: |
52:19 1996 |
| X-Loop: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Novell GroupWise 4.1 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
TechNet,
As a result of what appears to be delamination during the assembly
process I have made a comparison between my copy of IPC-A-600, Rev.
E, 1995 and IPC-A-610, Rev. B, Amendment 1, 1996 and I would like to
here further arguments between the acceptable Pink Ring as pictured on
page 19 of my IPC-600 and the unacceptable delamination pictured on
page 82, figure 8-11, of my IPC-610. If Pink Ring is evidence of bond
separation, how can this be acceptable at the fab level and then
unacceptable at the assembly level? Please comment.
Thank you.
[log in to unmask]
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
