then .. just use doped flux that will show up on x-ray ?
or use a radioisotope marker

On 10/23/06, Marcel Duchamp < marcel.duchamp@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Bob Axtell wrote:
> > Pearce, AB (Alan) wrote:
> >
> >>>So do we talk with them again to try to instill quality or jump out of
> >>>the frying pan and into the fire?  Will the next place be better or
> >>>worse?  I need a new crystal ball!
> >>>
> >>
> >>Often it is worth talking to them to explain the problem. Maybe they
> >>have a new operator they need to get properly up to speed ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Look, I'm an ole guy from an old school- if it can't be seen, it can't
> > be inspected- and if it
> > can't be reliably inspected, then is doesn't need to be designed into
> > the F22 Raptor. Just
> > my 4cents (with inflation).
> >
> > --Bob
>
> Alan is correct of course.  And I believe he has hit on the problem in
> my case: a new set of production people.  We are already trying to get
> this straightened out with them.
>
> I would also agree with Bob except that the design has no alternatives.
> It must use this part.  All other comments aside, success here does
> indeed depend on the procedure being followed 100%; there is no way to
> tell afterwards if it was done right.  These looked good, they worked
> well, then they began to fail due to the flux contamination.  But flux
> does not show up in x-rays.  Life goes on...
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist