Sorry Werner ;
 FDA recommends a standards guideline , in this instance ANSI , which
basically adopts IPC's .
That is why we took the 785 as an attachment reliability test .
Our web site I gave to understand our place in medical devices , because
it is not an internally implantable device we do not have to go to
extremes in FDA validations .
About the IEC speed you're dead right, the "speed" is amazing , it's not
much point to publish 5+ years after IPC.
What else would you recommend apart from 785 ?

>----------
>From:  Engelmaier[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:  Friday, December 19, 1997 2:53 PM
>To:    Paul Klasek; [log in to unmask]
>Subject:       Re: [TN] IPC-SM-785 Accelerated reliability Test Vehicle
>
>Hi Paul & Jeff,
>I do not quite understand your communication. What is an 'FDA linkable
>standard'? We are not implantable [?] > ( www.resmed.com ). What do you mean
>by this?
>Unfortunately IEC documents are developed very slowly; I am a member of both
>IEC Technical Advisory Groups TC 52, Printed Circuits, and TC 91, Surface
>Mount Technology; no effort is currently being made do turn ANSI/IPC SM 785
>into an IEC document-perhaps some push from different countries could get the
>ball rolling.
>
>Werner
>
>

##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional information.
For the technical support contact Dmitriy Sklyar at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.311
##############################################################