Good morning/afternoon/evening everyone, At the last round of technical meetings at Apex, I took the liberty of signing you all up for various committee work. As I tell the co-op students I mentor, "you go to meetings to protect yourself from action items". Since most of you were not there, you got assigned action items. This question goes to those individuals tasked with determining if a proposed or existing manufacturing process has "sufficient" materials and process compatibility. You get to determine if a new process or an existing process has a propensity for electrochemical failure mechanisms (leakage, corrosion, dendritic growth). You must choose the test vehicle by which to demonstrate this compatibility for J-STD-001, and surface insulation resistance testing is to be the metric. Question 1: Do you use actual hardware and your existing life/reliability tests under humid conditions, OR Do you use a standardized test vehicle from the IPC, representative of your assembly technology? Question 2: If you choose to use a standardized test vehicle, would you prefer to use an off the shelf design, which may be a stretch to represent your technology, OR if you were told how to do it, would you build your own test vehicle from a menu of acceptable SIR test patterns, that WAS representative of your product? I ask these questions, and more will follow, because, fool that I am, I agreed to re-write the Appendix B testing currently in J-STD-001C as part of the Rev D effort. Seems I just can't say no to Teresa Rowe. Rev D, as it is now, will make such Appendix B testing manditory. The drawbacks of previous test approaches have always been the applicability of the standardized test substrates (e.g IPC-B-36) to actual product. Graham Naisbitt, a valued contributor to Technet, is leading a similar effort for the IEC and we would like to co-ordinate efforts and come to a consensus for testing. We are talking about the best ways to do process qualification/validation testing. The first step is to come to agreement on what substrate to test. The discussion is also ongoing on IPC's SIRNet forum. Graham has a proposed test vehicle , but in looking at it, there would be a number of changes that I would want to see from Rockwell's perspective to make it more representative of our product. I imagine the same could be said of the rest of you, especially in the high rel world. I look forward to the responses. If you prefer to keep the responses private, communicate with me off-line. I need to have a draft for review by the May 6-7 meetings. Thank you. Doug Pauls, who needs his head examined Rockwell Collins --------------------------------------------------- Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315 -----------------------------------------------------