TECHNET Archives

January 1998

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ed Cosper <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:26:53 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
I have just completed my evaluation of the IPC 4101 specification and I have a few comments and questions. The questions are really directed to Laminate suppliers. 

First off, I have become accustomed to ordering my laminates to the old Mil-S-13949 since to me it is really a lot easier to  deal with in terms of whether the thickness is over the copper or laminate only. Especially when your trying to teach a new receiving inspector.  I really feel it is easier when I state 059 1/1  for it to mean .059 core cladded with 1 oz foil on each side.  Well, I see the new 4101 specification gives us an option. I'm really curious to get some feedback from the laminators on this new spec. I would suspect the laminators will have issues with having to change over current certification methods and documentation. I have a few questions.

1. When will the board manufactures be able to order and receive material certified to the IPC-4101? 
2. How long will we be able to Order to the IPC-L -xxxx standards?
3. Since I prefer to order all my laminate by stating the core thickness without cladding, what will be the availability of 
    material ordered in this manner? I suspect this will primarily affect rigid products. Will the laminate suppliers stock both 
    thickness of material or settle in on the copper included standard?

Second. I wonder just how the "substitution clauses" 3.12.3.2 - 3.12.3.3 is going to fare with military customers. It has been my experience that most military customers don't cotton to the idea of material certs not EXACTLY meeting there drawing notes. The old adage of if it is better it shouldn't matter never flew to well the accounts I've dealt with in the past ( Even though I do agree with the logic).  I believe I can foresee some issues arising from this when ( or if ) the Mil-S-13949 spec. is becomes obsolete.  

Ed Cosper
Director, Quality Assurance and Engineering
Graphic Electronics, Inc.

##############################################################
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
##############################################################

ATOM RSS1 RSS2