At 12:55 PM 3/16/01 -0600, Eisermann, Phil [Ridg/CO] wrote:
>         *grin* I usually get that sort of reaction :)
>
>         To clarify my sanity: No, I don't expect our boards to last
>continuously under 30g. I don't even expect them to see 30g in the field. A
>HALT test is designed to break the board. There is really no such thing as
>'passing' a HALT test. If nothing breaks, you're doing the test wrong.

I agree with your approach, up to a point.
It sounds to me like your crystal is crashing into the sides of the can.
Check the specs, but I doubt it's rated for that sort of abuse.

And therein is the fault I see in this method.
You're getting into areas where you're exciting threshold effects, not
wearout effects.
You'll be seeing fatigue failure in things that would NEVER fail in real
life, because they wouldn't get stressed that hard, much less repetitively.

Don't get me wrong, it has it's uses.  I used to test new packing by
kicking a carton of terminals off the third floor loading dock.  It didn't
take long to set up, and it was a pretty good indicator of how well the
packing would hold up.

--
Dave's Engineering Page: http://www.dvanhorn.org
Where's dave? http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?kc6ete-9

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics