Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vFN8H-0000RdC; Mon, 21 Oct 96 11:23 CDT |
Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:07:48 +0400 (EDT) |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
cc: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
X-Status: |
|
X-Loop: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"ww7mr2.0.WcP.ZDwQo"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Wed Oct 23 14: |
53:25 1996 |
Message-ID: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
TechNetters, about 2 years ago, this company had a discussion with a
customer who found 2 or 3 non-functional boards out of a batch of
approximately 100. The electrical test at that time was not structured
to check a few of the nets on the boards, and, sure enough, some
escaped. The customer was eager to have the test improved and corrective
action taken. About 1 month later, the customer returned with another
question: How much money would we save if no electrical testing were done?
I would suggest fabricators and users agree on acceptable quality levels
for bare boards before any contracts are made. I agree OEMs should not
have to test, either at the bare or assembled stage, quality into circuit
boards.
Lou Hart
Compunetics Quality Assurance
.
***************************************************************************
* 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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|