Fellow TechNetters,

There was a question a few weeks ago about component lead deformation in
excess of 10% diameter.

What was the outcome? I could only find two posts to the original question.

I also have a problem with rejecting a .030" diameter component lead which
has only a slightly more than >.003" deformation. How do you deal with this?
Commonly there will be relatively insignificant tool marks when forming
round leads (SMT or Thru-hole).  When measured, these minor marks are likely
to be called defects.

Following the J-Std-001 para. 6.1.2 or 7.1.1, our Quality department is of
the opinion to scrap parts with >10%.  Seems far too stringent and wasteful
too!.  Mil Std 2000 used to allow up to 20% reduction in cross section area
(current-carrying area) and that was reasonable.  Now I can not have tool
marks or depressions (which do not reduce cross-section area) in excess of
10% diameter.  I do not understand the reasoning for the dramatic reduction
from the old requirements.  Did someone translate 10% diameter to 10% area?



Rainer G. Blomberg
Honeywell -Space Systems Clearwater
Staff Production Engineer
(727) 539-5534


---------------------------------------------------
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 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------