Jump to content

Talk:In-circuit testing: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Electronics}}.
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Electronics|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Electronics|importance=low}}
}}
}}



Latest revision as of 13:55, 15 February 2024

Merge proposal

[edit]

I concur that Fixtureless_in-circuit_test and flying_probe should be meged into in-circuit test. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I believe there are enough differences to justify separate sections with links. Flying Probe uses some incircuit techniques but has limitations. The big difference is the mechanical issues of accessing loaded PCB’s. Incircuit test (ICT) should included discussion about MDA’s and combinational test.


As a practitioner of in-circuit test in a major electronics manufacturer and now as an independent consultant since 1979, flying probe test and "fixture-less" belong in separate categories. It is appropriate that they be linked together. Also, AOI Automated Optical Inspection and Automated Tomographic Xray Inspection should be linked.TDMIntl (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The method of analog electrical testing is similar but the interfacing method is very different. Incircuit also uses parallel digital testing and other test techniques that can not be performed on a flying probe tester. I therefore agree that they should reference each other but have separate sections.Miffo7uk (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]