Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | TechNet E-Mail Forum. |
Date: | Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:46:08 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Jim:
I think you have a good point about J-STD 001B, although I do believe that can cause problems when using multiple-vendors.
Matthew Curtis
Burnett Technical Training Center
Austin, Texas 78752
512-459-1110
>>> <[log in to unmask]> 12/02/98 12:52PM >>>
Bill Dasprzak:
- I think that you need to consider accumulating defect data on multiple pwb's
(of the same p/n) that you are processing. Folks running small pwa's with a
small number of connections would have a devil of a time (for example one
defect on a pwa with 300 connections probably puts you over the 0.3%
threshold).
- Re par. 9.1.2, I always thought that the intent of that paragraph was to
make sure that the defect rate calculations were based on a standardized
method of determining the number of opportunities (instead of counting a pth
as 2 defect sites - one on top of the pwb and one on the bottom of the pwb)
and telling everyone to just count each interconnection site once (whether
thru-hole or not).
- "Touching up" a solder joint after machine soldering should not be necessary
if the process is in control. If you don't record the number of "touch-ups"
as defects (and feed that information up-stream) you may never discover that
you are dealing with a component lot which has poor solderability. In
addition, and more likely, the folks will be touching up things that "just
don't look right to me" and spending a lot of time and money to reduce the
reliability of the product (if it ain't a real defect, leave it alone). Hand
soldering (add parts) after machine soldering is usually done in such limited
quantity that classic SPC is seldom applicable.
- Re corrective action system, paper work and record keeping. One of the
great things about the J-STD-001B is that it lets you do what ever makes sense
to you, as long as your customer agrees. I've never seen identical methods
used in different companies, so I don't know if there is a "typical way" to
perform/document corrective actions. Generating a "corrective action report"
for a single defect confuses me a little. Some method of identifying the
defect should exist and be factored into the process control system.
Hopefully the "corrective action report" you refer to is a "PRODUCT"
corrective action and not a PROCESS corrective action.
Jim Moffitt, Moffitt Enterprises Consulting
################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum 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's web site (http://www.ipc.org) "On-Line Services" section for additional information.
For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.312
################################################################
################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum 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's web site (http://www.ipc.org) "On-Line Services" section for additional information.
For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.312
################################################################
|
|
|