 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:18:23 -0500 (EST) |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| X-Sender: |
|
| TO: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Mon Mar 11 17: |
38:07 1996 |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"T9w0h1.0.kTB.SauFn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tuqhp-00006EC; Thu, 7 Mar 96 19:10 CST |
| Return-Path: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hello Keith... good to see you on the net...
We have seen requirements for tighter SEC, specifically 1/2 of Bellcore
limits for a non telecommunications customer. A more recent problem is the
tendency to specify a warm isopropyl solution for testing and we needed to
correlate with ambient temperature test method currently in use. This
apparently is due to post assembly cleaning concerns for high density, low
profile SM components.
Dave Rooke
Circo Craft
>I am interested in finding out if many of the board shops, or OEM's
>subscribed to Technet are seeing an requirement for SEC and SIR
>significantly tighter than the current Bellcore requirement. ie
>
> SEC.......1 micro gramme per sq. cm. NaCl equivelant
>
> SIR.......3000 megohms after HASL
>
>I have seen requests almost an order of magnitude tighter for both
>parameters and am wondering if this in response to an industry trend or just
>isolated cases. I am interested in finding out where our industry is
>heading, in this regard, and if any of the subscribers could suggest why a
>customer may need such tight controls.
>
> Keith Lumley, RexCan Circuits
D. Rooke
([log in to unmask])
|
|
|
