Alain, Regarding your comments regarding the effectiveness of Receiving inspections. I noticed you referenced seeing a board burn in the past to illustrate the importance of receiving inspection. I am curious as to what standard test your receiving inspection performs on incoming products that would have detected the potential of a board that would burn? Ed Cosper ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Savard" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [TN] PE: PCB Inspection > Well may be the inspectors need a bit of training... Proper work is only > done with either great luck (which is not reliable) or just plain old > training. Besides "not every reject is a defect and not every defect is a > reject". You have to review doubtful situations. Advise inspectors, in a > written format, of any changes you want done to their inspection methods. > Writing your own internal inspection documentation might not be a bad idea > either. > > Alain Savard, B.Sc. > Chemical Process Analyst > CAE Electronics Ltd. > e-mail: [log in to unmask] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Howieson, Rick > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [TN] PE: PCB Inspection > > Alain, > Couldn't help but respond to your comment on toys vs hi-rel. We build > space flight boards and very few (i.e. majority) of the receiving > inspectors have a clue to what they are inspecting. You would be amazed > of the 101 reasons I've seen to reject a board. Just a sample, "thermal > pads called etching shorts". Nuff said. > Rick > > >-----Original Message----- > >To: [log in to unmask] > >Subject: Re: [TN] PE: PCB Inspection > > > >Incoming inspection may be required in some instances... It all depends on > >the reliability you require for the boards. I don't think that most company > >dealing with high reliability products will dock-to-stock as eagerly as > >throw-away manufacturer. It also depends on assembly value, sometimes > >inspection may reduce headaches down the road. I've seen board burn in the > >past. These were supp0sed to be excellent board by the CoC... turned out > >they weren't that good. > > > >All processes, no matter what have to make sense. Gather data if and when > >possible. Keep your eyes open. I don't think that the people dealing with > >cheap assemblies, like most toys, are playing in the same ball park as > >people dealing high reliability medical or space equipment. > > > >Alain Savard, B.Sc. > >Chemical Process Analyst > >CAE Electronics Ltd. > >e-mail: [log in to unmask] > > ############################################################## > 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 Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or > 847-509-9700 ext.5315 > ############################################################## > ############################################################## 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 Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315 ##############################################################