Sorry Werner ; FDA recommends a standards guideline , in this instance ANSI , which basically adopts IPC's . That is why we took the 785 as an attachment reliability test . Our web site I gave to understand our place in medical devices , because it is not an internally implantable device we do not have to go to extremes in FDA validations . About the IEC speed you're dead right, the "speed" is amazing , it's not much point to publish 5+ years after IPC. What else would you recommend apart from 785 ? >---------- >From: Engelmaier[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] >Sent: Friday, December 19, 1997 2:53 PM >To: Paul Klasek; [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [TN] IPC-SM-785 Accelerated reliability Test Vehicle > >Hi Paul & Jeff, >I do not quite understand your communication. What is an 'FDA linkable >standard'? We are not implantable [?] > ( www.resmed.com ). What do you mean >by this? >Unfortunately IEC documents are developed very slowly; I am a member of both >IEC Technical Advisory Groups TC 52, Printed Circuits, and TC 91, Surface >Mount Technology; no effort is currently being made do turn ANSI/IPC SM 785 >into an IEC document-perhaps some push from different countries could get the >ball rolling. > >Werner > > ############################################################## 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. For the technical support contact Dmitriy Sklyar at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.311 ##############################################################