TECHNET Archives

January 1999

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:
"Stephen R. Gregory" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:41:15 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
In a message dated 1/26/99 5:20:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< I am having a problem with inspection of the above mentioned subject, My
 branch has contracted to build the end item product for NAVSEA, The supplier
 of the circuit cards sub-contracted the building of same. I have been doing
 incoming inspection of the circuit cards and found numerous defects in the
 area of side overhang exceeding 25% of the component pad. This area has
 irritated the supplier to say the least, and has responded by saying that
 the only inspection criteria that I can now use is by inspecting the leads
 from the toe end of the leads,straight on and not from a top view that is
 required because of the enourmous amount of surface mount components. The
 inspection criteria for these circuit cards is per IPC-610, class 3, High
 Performance Products. My question to you, "Is this the only way that I am
 allowed to inspect the leads or am I allowed to inspect them from all angles
 if necessary ?" and is this process documented in IPC-610 anywhere? Because
 I can't seem to find it anywhere between the covers of the manual.

 Lonnie Brinson
  Code 6072
  Bldg 2930
  854-2301 >>

Good Day Lonnie,

     My first reaction after reading your post, was; "Huh?" Sounds to me like
some pretty snazzy tap dancing (or fanny covering). I'm sure there isn't any
sort of rules of how something is to be oriented when you're inspecting it. I
do know that there are guidelines in the -610 as far as magnification goes,
but not what angle you're supposed to view something at...if ya' wanna stand
on your head and look at the board it don't make no difference, a defect is a
defect. Sounds to me like it's pretty apparent that the parts exceed the
alignment limits, and it's real obvious that it's not an optical illusion. You
look at things by whatever means it takes to see it. To me, it's just common
sense. Just my two cents...

-Steve Gregory-

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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2