 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tdQJx-0000OSC; Fri, 19 Jan 96 17:34 CST |
| X-Incognito-Sn: |
1000 |
| From [log in to unmask] Mon Jan 22 12: |
38:09 1996 |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Fri, 19 Jan 96 15:32:36 PST |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"RNHQy3.0.3R9.pf20n"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| X-Priority: |
3 (Normal) |
| X-Incognito-Format: |
VERSION=2.02.00.06 ENCRYPTED=NO |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
"Ubl, Scott" <[log in to unmask]> Wrote:
|
|
| I am curious, what are commonly used receiving inspection
| procedures for
| outsourced multilayer PWB's and the value of individual
| procedure.
|
| I would like to know more about what other companies
| thoughts and
| procedures are, on doing solderability tests, cross section
| analysis,
| requiring COC's and ionic contamination testing at receiving
| inspection.
| Is this analysis found to be benefiticial and identify
| defective lots?
| Basically I am looking for others to share the experiences
| they had with
| bare board inspection and ideas to optimize the effectiveness
| of the PCB
| inspection step for a high quality board.
|
|
| Thank you,
|
Hello Scott -
IPC-A-600 (Acceptability of Printed Boards, Rev E) published in August
1995 is a good reference and industrial standard for bare board
inspection.
Best Regards
Nora Xiao
Tektronix, Inc.
|
|
|
