J-STD-001F Amendment 1 Comments for Teleconference - April 2015

Commenter name, company /
Reference
/ Recommendation / Reason for Recommendation /

Committee Resolution

1 / Jack Crawford, Consultant / 001F
5.1.2
610F
6.3.3
Added Mar 15 / T/E / Conflict for Class 2 strand separation.
Both have D3 for strand separation outside of overall wire diameter, but different for strand separation greater than 1 strand diameter not extending beyond the insulation outside diameter.
A1P2D3 in 610F
A1D2D3 in 001F / We put a lot of effort into this for 620B Amendment 1 to resolve differences and the decision was to assure the same criteria is in all three docs. 610F matches the approved 620B but it appears that the sentence in 001F didn’t get rebuilt to separate strand separation greater than 1 D but inside outer diameter (should be P2), and strand separation greater than outer diameter (current D3 all docs). / Align J-001F with -610 and -620
Make D2 a P2
2 / Jim Daggett, Raytheon / 001
5.4.6 Pierced or Perforated Terminals Table 5-9 Pierced or Perforated Terminal Wire Placement
Added Mar 15
-610
6.11.1 Pierced/Perforated – Lead/Wire placement / T / From:
<90° wrap and does not contact at least two surfaces of the terminal.
To:
<90° wrap or does not contact at least two surfaces of the terminal. / Non Editorial – Rev “E” has this a two separate criteria, now in Table 5-9 Rev “F” they both need to be violated in order for the condition to be deemed a defect (with the use of the word and). If Table is to remain as is, then doesn’t the right most graphic in Figure 5-14 be need to identified as a defect (contacts two sides but does not meet the 90 deg wrap criteria) / Align -610 with -001
-610 Tables do not align
Missing change to the first line item in the table
May also need to correct the wording in the A1D2,D3 section next page (6-45)
APEX - Not accept 26/2
Second motion: Tables are different in 001 and 610. Take Table 5-9 from 001 and move it to 610. 29/1
Complete_T Rowe
3 / J Daggett, Raytheon / 001
5.6.6.1
Comment added Nov 14 / T / From:
To:
The wire to component termination-land solder connection shall not [D1D2D3] be less than 50% of the land width or twice the conductor diameter, whichever is greater. / Accepted comment (K Johnston #112) that seems to have gotten truncated in the ballot/released document and now doesn’t align with IPC-A610 F section 8.6.1.1. Otherwise no criteria for jumper wire to component/pad interface (min length) / Action for Kathy to fix this section – submitted 3/2015
THE CLOSED ACTION SHOULD RESOLVE THIS ONE
4 / Jim Daggett, Raytheon / 001
7.5.11 Flat Lug Leads Table 7-12
Added Mar 15
-610
8.3.9
Flat Lug Leads/Flat Unformed Leads
Table 8-10 / T / From:
Minimum End Joint Width C 50% (W) 75% (W) (W)
To:
Minimum End Joint Width C 50% (W) 75% (W) 100% (W) / Non Editorial – conflict between allowable side overhang for Class 3 and Minimum End Joint Width (i.e. if allowable side overhang is 25% of W, how can the Minimum End Joint Width be equal to W?
Editorial only – typically when a minimum dimension has to be at 100% of another feature, 100% proceeds that features dimensional abbreviation / Table 7-12 Flat Unformed Leads
AGREE – Conflict
ADD “C” in the Flat Unformed Lead section in the Amendment
Minimum End Joint Width, Dimension C
Class 1 50%
Class 2 75%
Class 3 75%
5 / John Vickers, A.R.T on behalf of 610 Beta training class / 001
10
Coating
10.3.5 Bubbles and Voids
10.3.6 Delamination
10.3.8 Other Visual Conditions
610
10.8.2
Conformal Coating Coverage
Added Mar 15 / T / Issues with Acceptable and PI criteria being similar or the same plus issues with requirement for solder mask or not.
John Debbie Kris and Teresa discussed this via web chat so if present they will have more info. / Leader Comments:
-610 alignment with itself is in conflict
-001 and -610 do not align / SYNERGY
Telecom if leaders can document alignment issues.
6 / J Daggett, Raytheon / 001
10.1
Comment added Dec 14 / T / From:
Conformal Coating for Tin Whisker Risk Mitigation Conformal Coating requirements used for tin whisker risk mitigation shall [D1D2D3] be as agreed between user and supplier.
To:
Eliminate / This requirement appears to have been added after the ballot document came out for review and voting. If this is the case, don’t see how a requirement can get added without a consensus vote. / Suggest we remove in Amendment if it truly was not voted on.
Could cause issues if agreement is not currently required
Comment from T: The statement was not in the 001F ballot file.
7 / Gary Latta, SAIC / 001
Table 10-1
Comment added Jan 15 / T / Change 0.0005 to 0.0004 / The exact conversion of 0.01mm to inches is 0.000393701 / AGREE – Change in Amendment this is EDITORIAL
8 / Jim Daggett, Raytheon / 001
10.3 Conformal Coating
Added Mar 15
-610
Conformal Coating Coverage 10.8.2 / T / From: (Rev E)
The adjustable portion of adjustable components, as well as electrical and mechanical mating surfaces such as connector contacts, probe points, screw threads, bearing surfaces (e.g., card guides) shall [D1D2D3] be left uncoated as specified on the assembly drawing(s)/ documentation.
To: (Rev F)
Requirement as written above eliminated / Non Editorial
The exclusion of part of this section from 10.1.1.1 (Rev E) has us more than a little concerned as to whether parts like adjustable components will be treated properly (from a conformal coat perspective going forward). From a Manufacturing perspective, if I coat an adjustable part am I following or in violation of section 10.3 (I know common sense wise I should not be coating, but most drawings I’m used to reviewing tell us where not to coat [i.e. mask[, not where to coat). J-STD is no longer indicating specifically that those parts need to be documented on assembly drawing as was the case in rev E. / Leader Comment:
Could be an issue if drawings do not use this format currently
Discuss further with Jim and Leaders
Locate comment submission with justification for review
Was this a change in the Draft, or Ballot?
10.3 does say apply only to areas designated for coating - does this help?
9 / Jim Daggett, Raytheon / 001
10.3.8 Other Visual Conditions
Added Mar 15
610
Conformal Coating Coverage 10.8.2 / T / From:
The coating shall [D1D2D3] be free of dewetting, mealing, peeling, wrinkles (nonadhering areas), cracks, ripples, fisheyes or orange peel that bridge non-common conductors.
To:
The coating shall [D1D2D3] be free of dewetting, mealing, peeling, wrinkles (nonadhering areas), cracks, ripples, fisheyes or orange peel that bridge exposed non-common conductors. / Non Editorial – no longer has these conditions being a fault if they expose component conductors, PWB conductors... only if bridging noncommon conductors
-610 Wording (Leader added for reference)
Bridging of adjacent lands or exposed conductive surfaces caused by: Loss of adhesion, voids or bubbles, dewetting, cracks, ripples, fisheyes, orange peel, flaking / Leader Comments
AGREE – Intent was “expose” not “bridge”
Some of these are surface conditions that do not affect coating seal
Vote on changing wording for the Amendment
-001 Comment - ALSO DOES NOT ALIGN WITH -610

1 | Page