recently, we started to go down that road (rel eval of blowholes) but fixed
the wave process instead -- took less effort/time than doing the rel eval
and then forever after having to adjudicate acceptability.   easier to
eliminate and not deal with it.  our process eng killed it dead muy pronto
([log in to unmask], so ask him).

for me there's always that nagging QE paranoia about assy rel: in the case
of blowholes is it a via issue or solder issue?
what if it's not a solder issue and by accepting it we're masking a pwb
issue?

maybe i was potty trained too young.  :^)
ahhh, the making of a QE...

fwiw,
dwight
(if i was any good, i wouldn't be in QA)

At 07:04 PM 8/14/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Fellow Technetters:
>
>My company has recently adopted IPC-A-610 as the workmanship standard.
>We build class 2 printed circuit boards.
>This Standard states that blowholes are acceptable, as nonconforming
>process indicators, as long as acceptable wetting is present.
>
>In the past, all blowholes were 'touched up'.  I do not wish to continue
>to rework the bottom side solder joints if it is truly not necessary.
>I do have reservations about saying 'Use As Is' since at least one
>soldering process authority states that blowholes must be reworked.
>
>Does anyone have any quality or reliability data that supports or
>refutes the argument for accepting blowholes as process indicators?
>
>John Ryaby
>Process Engineer
>
>