Talk:Bed of nails tester

I agree that it refers to the same thing. How can they be merged?

I don't agree that it refers to the same thing. As a matter of fact, I think Bed of nails tester should be merge into ICT instead. Agilent 3070 is probably the most popoular in the Electronic Manufacturer Test solution and they have refered to the system as In-Circuit Tester (ICT) and not Bed of nails tester. The name "Bed of nails tester" probably been refered to because of the way the fixture on the ICT system is done. However, there have been other technology which is slightly different. I vote for "Bed of nails tester" be merge into ICT.

I second the motion of merging "Bed of nails tester" into ICT (not the other way around). |--JC--| 00:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I Third the motion. "Bed Of Nails Tester" should be merged with In-Circuit Test (ICT) the term "bed of nails tester" is not in common use by those in the industry. Chris Turner, ICT Eng.

OK, I have followed your preference and subsumed "Bed of nails tester" and also material from "Bed of nails" into "In circuit test". My good deed for the day. NuclearWinner 00:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that "bed of nails tester" should be merged into the ICT article. Perhaps Fixtureless In-Circuit Test should be as well. It would also be good to have pictures of both types. There is a Teradyne Z1820 I can take a picture of at work. I don't have access to any flying probe testers though. Urlor (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Contact types

There are various styles of contact. Earlier pins were just sewing needles, later pins had multiple contact points in various styles.

A pic of a bed of nails testbed would help those unfamiliar with the things.

FWIW I've worked with one, and only ever heard it called a bed of nails tester, not an ICT. Tabby 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ICT != bed-of-nails tester

I disagree on merging the two topics. In-circuit test and bed-of-nail testing are sufficiently independent from one another where they warrant their own entries.

I would also add a LOT more information could be added to the in-circuit test article which would further give reason to keep them as separate articles.

John (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've de-merged the articles. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Dead reference

The singular source this article cites is a dead link that no longer leads to the PDF. 207.148.150.66 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)