Joseph,

You have a good one here, sir! To cot or not to cot?

If as you say you have good control of issues that pertain to static
already, AND your people are very tuned into this also, it would seem that
you may have a point.

On the other hand, static electricity tends to have effects that are more
long term and damaging then short term problems. You state that 'Our new
Space customer.....' which leads me to think that maybe you do not see any
long term issues that come along due to not being involved in the product
long term. You also mention a history of good results for Hi Rel products.
That seems a good factor if it is related to long term reliability.

It seems like the most of your concerns relate to the human factor. I would
think that if those are REALLY under control now, then changes might not be
a good thing.

There has been a lot of studies that support static control. Seems to me
that the real question is, Is the customer right?

Good luck on this one! I would be interested in knowing what happens, short
term as well as long term.

Richard Hamilton
Clemar Mfg. / Rain Bird
[log in to unmask]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kane, Joseph [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 8:02 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      [TN] Assembly With Gloves Or Finger Cots
>
> Technetters:
>
> Our new Space customer may be pushing us to use static-protective gloves
> or
> finger cots for soldering and assembly operations.  We prefer to continue
> our current practice, having operators exercise due care and handle
> product
> by the edges only, and use gloves only for hot things or when using some
> chemicals.  This has worked well for all of our high-rel product,
> including
> flight controls and aircraft engine controls.  When we do 10-day humidity
> on
> conformal coated assemblies, we occasionally see mealing patterns in the
> shape of fingerprints, but not very often.
>
> Some of the problems we see with the alternatives, in approximate order of
> importance:
>
> 1.  Gloves and finger cots compromise dexterity and tactile sensitivity.
> Maybe not much, but some.  Productivity suffers, defects go up, and maybe
> some things get dropped that normally wouldn't.
> 2.  Contaminants deposit on gloves or finger cots, obviating any benefit.
> By contrast, when operators get flux or adhesives on their bare fingers,
> they can feel it, and they go wash their hands, or at least wipe them on
> something.
> 3.  Finger oils still get on gloves or finger cots.  You have to handle
> them
> with bare hands to get them on, and then everyone's nose needs a scratch
> once in a while.
> 4.  Operators hate them because they are cumbersome and uncomfortable.
> Some
> would say tough luck, and if there were good reasons we would force the
> issue, but as it is this looks like another compliance issue/audit trap
> that
> we don't really need.
> 5.  Over time, some people develop sensitivity to latex, maybe even
> nitrile.
> 6.  They cost money.
>
> Like bunny suits or respirators, I don't know why anyone would use these
> things unless there was a good reason.  Anyone out there have any
> experience, good or bad?
>
>
> Joe Kane
> Lockheed Martin Control Systems
>

##############################################################
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.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################