For Paul: -----Original Message----- From: Paul Reid [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 2:01 PM To: Chris Mahanna Cc: John Perry Subject: FW: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll Hi Chris, When I post to 6012 the email gets rejected. Could you review this email and post it for me. In the mean time I will contact John Perry and ask him to fix the email problem. Sincerely, Paul Reid Program Coordinator PWB Interconnect Solutions Inc. 235 Stafford Rd., West, Unit 103 Nepean, Ontario Canada, K2H 9C1 613 596 4244 ext. 229 Skype paul_reid_pwb [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> -----Original Message----- From: Paul Reid Sent: August 16, 2010 1:58 PM To: '(Combined Forum of D-33a and 7-31a Subcommittees)' Subject: RE: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll Hi Chris, I would describe this section as a vertical section rotated in a way that the drilled hole is horizontal. The plating would be described as "laminar" plating, with five distinct layers. There is no evidence of significant negative etch back in the sample. There is evidence of hole wall separation at the knee of the hole. A crack is observed propagating horizontally from the corner of the dielectric, through the first electrolytic copper layer parallel to the plane of the dielectric. This type of crack is observed in lead free assembly and rework. The crack propagates between the first and second electrolytic copper layers. There is no separation between the surface foil and the electrolytic copper layer one. I believe this is non-conforming in that there is a separation between layers of electrolytic copper plating. You are allowed a separation between the foil and the barrel but not a separation within the copper plating. Sincerely, Paul Reid Program Coordinator PWB Interconnect Solutions Inc. 235 Stafford Rd., West, Unit 103 Nepean, Ontario Canada, K2H 9C1 613 596 4244 ext. 229 Skype paul_reid_pwb [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> -----Original Message----- From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Mahanna Sent: August 16, 2010 1:19 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [IPC-600-6012] opinion poll Hi Everyone, Attached is a picture of a thru-hole corner after thermal stress. The plating is pulse. I believe the corner was 'burnt' because of the geometry of the (conformant) negative etchback. All the corners show burn; some show blisters; only this one cracked. In your opinion, what are the non-conformance(s) if any? Thanks Chris ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________________________