Nick:
You are right, I once mentioned PCBStandards as compared to the correct
PCBLibraries. I apologize for that, you were right in correcting me.
In the interest of not getting into a flame war, I will not comment further
on your message.
I still am requesting volunteers to help with the development of a web site
to contain some of the functionality of the new standard so all users can
have the same level of support as they did with the old 782 calculator,
probably without approval and storing of land patterns. I don't see this
effort taking more than a year as long as the IPC is willing to host it.
Can someone on the executive board help with that?
--
George Patrick
Tektronix, Inc.
Central Engineering, PCB Design Group
P.O. Box 500, M/S 39-512
Beaverton, OR 97077-0001
Phone: 503-627-5272 Fax: 503-627-5587
http://www.tektronix.com http://www.pcb-designer.com
It's my opinion, not Tektronix'
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Ban (PCBL) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 09:24
To: '(Designers Council Forum)'; Patrick, George H
Subject: RE: [DC] IPC Design Specifications (or new subject maybe)
Please search your post, you will find you did in fact mention
"PCBStandards", and I merely corrected you. PCB Libraries has on several
occasions been confused for PCBStandards. They are NOT the same. Why are you
telling me I'm wrong in correcting you? Also, if you make my company look
bad (ie suspicious), are you telling me I have to right to explain/correct
your statements?
So far I noticed three types of people replying to my messages both online
and offline.
1. PCB Libraries is doing a good job and my company is
currently or can benefit
2. PCB Libraries should provide its innovation for free
- Its developers and creditors don't necessarily need
to recover their costs; hey it's all for the good of
society, right?
3. Volunteers should spend the next several years reinventing
the wheel and making the software available for free
- Spend the next 5-10 years reinventing the wheel with
volunteers working on this part-time. It's all good if
you can do the same for free out of the goodness of your
heart and the whole industry will thank you. I'm inclined
to believe by the time volunteers are done, there will
be other tools that do MUCH more than simple calculations
and a simple calculator like the 782 one-tier online calculator
is quite obsolete.
How do you plan on competing in the global economy with something that's
simple and obsolete? Those in category 2 and 3 are only going to let more
jobs float away overseas to cheaper labor.
There are those who invest a few weeks worth of savings they would reap from
an innovation, and there are those who won't. Over the next year, more jobs
will probably be lost to cheaper labor because some just refuse to work
smarter. That is (and will be) their problem, but unfortunately, it's our
industry.
Now regarding the IPC standards, I don't want to say anything about people
commenting on price now, but applying this concept to the development of
standards... I must say that from what I recall of my days at IPC, pretty
much nobody who commented on the pricing of standards was involved in
creating them.
Apparently the volunteers know that creating the standards takes much more
time and money than they can put on the table.
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: DesignerCouncil [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of George
Patrick
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DC] IPC Design Specifications (or new subject maybe)
Nick:
I don't object to providing an expanded product.
I object to the removal of a free product in favor of a product your company
charges for, and then ONLY if you are running windows.
I don't object to paying for a standard, and I never have. I think it is
regrettable that a standard is pushed by the person who is going to
monetarily _gain_ from the standard. And I also wonder if some additional
effort to maintain the on-line calculator might have been undertaken if the
person gaining from the commercial calculator was not pushing his own
agenda. Yes, it might have taken longer and not been as full of features as
the commercial product, but so what? THAT would have been a good marketing
point for the commercial product.
I never mentioned PCBStandards on the forum. Your inclusion of the link
might be construed as promotion of the above company instead of being part
of this discussion. And your explanation in the second paragraph is pretty
self self-serving. You only are saving a library developer 30-40 minutes if
they are on windows (and I really question your 30-40 minute average
figure). If they are on Unix you have just cost them MORE time because your
company was instrumental in removing the only tool they had in favor of your
tool which they can't run.
I think some investigation ought to be made into re-instating and upgrading
the on-line calculator, as _SHOULD_ have, and maybe WOULD have, been done by
the committee if commercial interests didn't get in the way. Since the IPC
has no connection with said commercial interest, there shouldn't be any
objection on their part. If there is any interest, and if there are other
volunteers to help, I will also help in the development. Not to enrich
myself, just to help out other designers.
--
George Patrick
Tektronix, Inc.
Central Engineering, PCB Design Group
P.O. Box 500, M/S 39-512
Beaverton, OR 97077-0001
Phone: 503-627-5272 Fax: 503-627-5587
http://www.tektronix.com http://www.pcb-designer.com
It's my opinion, not Tektronix'
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Ban (PCBL) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 18:01
To: '(Designers Council Forum)'; Patrick, George H
Subject: RE: [DC] IPC Design Specifications (or new subject maybe)
I didn't want to get into these details on the forum, but you guys seem to
leave me no choice but to explain... if you don't want to read the numbers
again, skip the next paragraph.
George, as I explained to you offline, the new LP software cuts design time
of one part from 30-40 minutes to as little as 2 to 5 minutes. Someone who
creates 5 parts a week, can now save 3 hours per week. If they're worth
$50/hr, they can allocate the $600 they'd get paid per month building parts
to getting the design out the door faster and moving on to the next project.
If the designer is worth $100/hr, the savings are $1,200. Some one who
invests in the tool can make their money back in a few weeks. Then profit
afterwards. Apparently, an increasing number of people don't think this is a
bad idea.
I find it very strange that many who don't invest in this software complain
about "high price". Antithetically, quite a few who actually purchase a
license in the end (once they see the payback), tell us the software is
"under-priced".
There are some who think that anything related with a standard should be
free or of very little cost. Those who don't believe in using new tools and
decide to tough it out with an older or less efficient method, that is their
option. "This is the way we do it because this is the way we've always done
it" simply doesn't work, the industry is very fluid. Technology and costs
constantly change.
Let's take a step back. It takes several years to create a single standard
with volunteers. To expect something like our software to be created by
volunteers in such short a time is very unrealistic. Because the software is
selling, we can compensate the developers so that we can improve the
software at a MUCH faster pace than any volunteer you'll find to do this in
his/her part time while doing design work on the side.
Nobody is obligated to buy the software if they purchase the standard. But
everyone does have the option to invest for competitive advantage and market
share.
Though many US companies are investing in this tool, it's unfortunate that
not all are, and its very sad if they aren't doing so if the reason is that
someone convinced them with a blanket statement that they shouldn't have to
pay for anything that's got to do with a standard.
The most critical time to *invest* in development is when the business is
hurting. IF one's company policy links the "amount of investment" with the
copmany "revenue", the death spiral is virtually always inevitable:
1. Less revenue ->
2. Less investment ->
3. Less competetive advantage -> (return to step 1)
This cycle can be triggered at any stage and repeats forever until
intentionally broken. At some point of decreased revenue, there likely are
more cutbacks and downsizing (what does that do to revenue?). The most
common way by far to break this spiral is to wisely invest the decreasing
resources (this does NOT mean refraining from investing, as many seem to
believe - see #2 above).
Oh, one quick correction - in an earlier post, you mentioned PCBStandards.
I'm sure you meant www.PCBLibraries.com. Now I've got plenty of work I set
aside and must get back to it.
Regards,
Nick Ban
PCB Libraries, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: DesignerCouncil [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of George
Patrick
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 6:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DC] IPC Design Specifications (or new subject maybe)
Donald:
Sorry to correct you, but you DO have to purchase something to have the same
functionality as you did with the previous standard. As you said yourself,
"...the web version did let you create land patterns but it was very
limited." The old on-line calculator allowed you enter dimensions and get
suggested land pattern dimensions back that were based on the SM-782
standard and the numbers you entered. You have to send money to a private
company now in order to attain that same functionality now.
Unless you are running on Unix, in which case you can't even BUY the same
functionality. Just a paper (or CD) standard and a calculator :/
Never mind, let us agree to disagree and let it go with that :)
--
George Patrick
Tektronix, Inc.
Central Engineering, PCB Design Group
P.O. Box 500, M/S 39-512
Beaverton, OR 97077-0001
Phone: 503-627-5272 Fax: 503-627-5587
http://www.tektronix.com http://www.pcb-designer.com
It's my opinion, not Tektronix'
-----Original Message-----
From: DesignerCouncil [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Donald
Kyle
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 15:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DC] IPC Design Specifications (or new subject maybe)
a
George, correct me if I am wrong but the last time I was on the IPC web
site the viewer was there and it was FREE.
You don't have to buy anything to have what you had with SM-782.
However the web version did let you create land patterns but it was very
limited.
http://landpatterns.ipc.org/default.asp
If you wanted to have the electronic version of SM-782 (Excel format), you
had to pay $50.00 US.
I did buy that version and used it quite a bit.
Today IPC charges $50 for the hard copy of IPC-7351 and gives you a CD with
the viewer. No calculator with this package.
If you go to PCB Libraries you can buy the new calculator for $177.00 US I
think. That is more than what I paid for the old one but it works a lot
better.
http://www.pcblibraries.com/store/detail.aspx?ID=16
Anyway, just because Nick changed jobs doesn't mean that he or anyone else
is trying to "hoodwink" anyone.
IMHO. :)
Donald
At 04:51 PM 3/21/2005, you wrote:
><ONLINE>
>
>The thing I don't care for is that a company has the appearance of pushing
>thru a standard that directly benefits themselves. This is not a company
>getting indirect benefit from increased exposure, this is a company
>developing a tool that has the appearance of driving the standard that it
>supports, with the involvement of an IPC insider. Perhaps if some free
>functionality had been maintained (such as just providing the numbers
>without actually creating the package symbol), I would feel that we (the DC
>members) hadn't been "hoodwinked." As it is, the appearance is otherwise.
>
>The IPC "profits" (and I agree that some of those costs are necessary),
>PCBLibraries profits (which is not in itself bad), but the designers have
to
>purchase a tool that provides the same function (admittedly with more
>features) as a tool that was previously provided for free. I have to
>believe that if the standard hadn't been championed by one of the
developers
>of the (for-profit) tool, some volunteer effort might have upgraded the
>existing SM-782 on-line tool to continue to work for free. I would have
>been happy to contribute to this tool, I am sure other ( web / asp /
>JavaScript / java / MySQL / whatever ) savvy designers would have
>participated as well. PCBStandards would still have made money from its
>tool, IPC would have still made money to support its efforts from the
>standard, the designers would not have had to purchase a replacement for a
>tool they had used for years for free, peace would have reined in the
world,
>and the Easter bunny would have delivered his eggs on time.
>
>Nothing personal, Nick, I am sure you did not see anything wrong with this
>and I am not trying to throw stones at you personally. But the appearance
>of some "funny-business" is there. And I had to vent in public, too,
Chris.
>
><:^/
>
>--
>George Patrick
>Tektronix, Inc.
>Central Engineering, PCB Design Group
>P.O. Box 500, M/S 39-512
>Beaverton, OR 97077-0001
>Phone: 503-627-5272 Fax: 503-627-5587
>http://www.tektronix.com http://www.pcb-designer.com
>
>It's my opinion, not Tektronix'
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: DesignerCouncil [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris
>Ball
>Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 13:33
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [DC] IPC Design Specifications (or new subject maybe)
>
>
>Nick-
>
>I waited as long as I could.... Maybe I'm way off with this, and if so, I
>apologize, but... I'm thinking you might be a little biased.
>
>Does PCBLibraries get a % on every copy of 7351 sold? I have to say it
>feels kind of funny to get funneled into your company's website from a
>utility delivered as part of a spec from IPC.
>
>Even if PCBLibraries gets no $ from the sale of the spec, your voluntary
>participation garners you a whole bunch of exposure. Doesn't seem kosher to
>me somehow... especially knowing that you recently left IPC.
>
>I sense a change in the force, Luke.
>
>-Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> "Nick Ban (PCBL)"
> <[log in to unmask]> To:
>[log in to unmask]
> Sent by: DesignerCouncil cc:
> <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re:
>[DC] IPC Design
> Specifications
> 03/21/2005 01:46 PM
> Please respond to Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Please don't misunderstand me, I am not for IPC becoming wealthy. However,
>I
>would like to see it operational 5 years from now.
>
>Lowering cost of the standards may get more people to purchase more, but
>that does not necessarily mean that IPC will be able to make up its
>expenses
>in creating and promoting of the standard (ie sustain itself).
>
>It seems to me it's about choosing the lesser of two evils:
>
>1. Higher cost standards to cover the expenses
> - Some cannot afford and probably illegally reproduce
> standards; operating expenses met.
>2. Low cost standards to make more affordable
> - cost of creating standards remains high (even with the
> cutbacks of the last several years), and liabilities
> cannot be paid despite the fact that everybody in
> the industry uses the standards.
>
>While most standard users would prefer option 2, it is not a good business
>model of any company that isn't otherwise adequately funded.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ray Johnston [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:54 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [DC] IPC Design Specifications
>
>Nick,
>I don't think it about getting specifications and training for free. Its
>more about getting more affordable for the individual designer.
>Whether a member is an individual or a company should not be an issue when
>discounting to members. We all want standards to help get the job done
>right, but if they are unattainable then eventually the standard will be no
>more. It is more the individual then a company that keeps the standards a
>standard. I know from where I sit I get the (non-member)company I work for
>to buy standards from the IPC, because they are necessary. I am the only
>member at this company and in the past have had some trouble getting them
>to
>
>bite on the IPC standards.
>What I'm trying to say is that because a company has individual member(s),
>the company will buy standards at full price, and Rane (the company I work
>for) buys these standards for both Engineering and manufacturing.
>I would think this is worth more than a discount.
>
>Well thanks for letting me rant.
>
>Ray Johnston
>Lead CAD Designer
>Rane Corporation
>425-355-6000
>rayj@rane,com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Nick Ban (PCBL)" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 3:36 PM
>Subject: Re: [DC] IPC Design Specifications
>
>
> >I saw the movie, not sure if that's exactly what it was called, but I
know
> > what you're talking about. So IPC should basically give its standards
and
> > training materials out to the industry for free to help it out.
> > Consequently, shut down due to lack of revenue. Isn't what you're saying
> > going to benefit the industry once and never again?
> >
> > IPC cannot function like the government and subsidize development
without
> > getting some kind of income. The government gets your taxes (unless one
> > figures out clever loopholes and doesn't want to pay their due), IPC
> > doesn't
> > (that's why it charges for its standards).
> >
> > Companies like Hallmark, Coretec, Mentor and Overland can help the
> > designers
> > more directly because its core business is in another area and very
> > profitable. IPC mainly relies on membership dues (how much was the DC
> > membership again, $50? per year?) and sale of standards, among some
other
> > things.
> >
> > I see how what you're proposing would benefit the industry in the next
> > year,
> > but 2, 3 or 5 years from now, who will? I suspect another entity would
> > arise
> > to fill that void with the same intent of supporting its continued
> > existence. Do we then we can ask them to give away its standards just
the
> > same "for the sake of the industry"... and then repeat the cycle?
> >
> > Keeping in mind most volunteers are doing it as a "side job" to get
> > visibility and other intangible benefits, why would anyone even bother
> > investing in creating, promoting and updating standards?
> >
> > Like I said, if volunteers can find it in their hearts to contribute
much
> > more than they do now (ie travel/hotel and time), for example
>coordinating
> > and signing off on meeting room contracts, catering, promotion
campaigns,
> > graphics work, etc., the list goes on... basically satisfy all the
> > requirements of creating such reliable standards, why don't they?
> >
> > Hint: it would cost too much time and effort (not just once, but on an
> > ongoing basis) and they would probably end up having to charge people
for
> > the standards like IPC.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DesignerCouncil [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > Brooks,Bill
> > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:53 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [DC] IPC Design Specifications
> >
> > Nick... I see what you are saying...
> >
> > It just doesn't work that way in my mind.
> >>From where I stand, The industry as a whole stands to gain the most from
> > better trained designers... why not have 'the industry' help fund their
> > education? They make grants and scholarships to colleges and
>universities,
> > they support their political affiliations, why not invest in the
designer
> > community that stands to make them the most profit through adopting
>better
> > design practices? Some companies already see this and are doing
something
> > about it...
> >
> > We expect our government to spend money on R&D to further our economic
> > strength... well, why not support the designers of the products we want
>to
> > fuel our economy with? 'Pay it Forward' so to speak... you ever see that
> > movie? If not, you should rent it... what a great concept. Just like
> > designers need to invest in their careers, the PCB industry and the
> > foundations that support industry need to invest in its PCB Designers.
> >
> > That's where I am coming from... but hey it's just an idea... maybe it
> > will
> > never catch on... or then again it might... and what companies are going
> > to
> > get to claim the honors and praise from it if it does catch on and the
> > industry invests in it's designer community... ? I know Coretec and
>Mentor
> > are investing in the Designer community now... I'm sure there are others
> > that designers can name that have been big heroes, like Hallmark
Circuits
> > for one, like Overland Storage for another, who helped the local
>Designers
> > here... I think there is a great opportunity here to 'raise the bar' to
a
> > higher level and really make an investment in the DC... make it a much
> > stronger force for bringing together designers and industry and
> > strengthening our place in the world. We just need to see folks think of
> > it
> > as an investment in their own futures as corporations.
> >
> > Then someday making specs available will be a trivial matter. And they
> > won't
> > have to do all the copy protection 'stuff' to the disks. The DC will be
>in
> > the black instead of the red... and I will keep hoping for the day. Who
> > knows I may see it in my lifetime... it could happen.... not everyone is
>a
> > mercenary.
> >
> >
> > Bill Brooks - KG6VVP
> > PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D.+, C.I.I.
> > Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510
> > e-mail:[log in to unmask]
> > http://www.dtwc.com
> > http://pcbwizards.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nick Ban (PCBL) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:55 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [DC] IPC Design Specifications
> >
> > When you take the top-mgmt compensation and prop it up against the
>overall
> > costs (many specified below), it just won't compare. As much as I'd like
> > to
> > believe that it could, I seriously doubt that by reducing - even
> > completely
> > eliminating - top management compensation will put any kind of
>significant
> > dent in the cost of the standards, forget about 'slashing' the price to
> > make
> > them much more affordable.
> >
> > Programming, website management, graphics design, meeting planning,
> > production, training, accounting, and customer support all sum up to
much
> > more than what top management makes, and this is only staff
compensation.
> > Then factor in the other operational costs.
> >
> > Our capitalistic society will find a way of doing things cheaper. If
> > someone
> > in the electronics industry knew that they can earn a decent living
> > creating, producing, promoting, selling, and updating reliable and ANSI
> > approved standards of the same caliber as IPC's ****at cheaper cost****,
> > I'm
> > inclined to believe they would have done it already, especially during
>the
> > industry's poor employment conditions of the past few years.
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> > -----
> > DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using
>LISTSERV
> > 1.8d
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text
in
> > the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
> > To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET
> > DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> > Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases
> >
> > E-mail Archives
> > Please visit IPC web site
>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
> > for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask]
>or
> > 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> > -----
> >
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>-----
> > DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using
>LISTSERV
>
> > 1.8d
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text
in
> > the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
> > To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET
> > DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> > Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases
> >
>
> > E-mail Archives
> > Please visit IPC web site
>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>
> > for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask]
>or
>
> > 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>-----
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>-----
>
>DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV
>1.8d
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
>To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET
>DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
>E-mail Archives
>Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>-----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the intended
>recipient(s).
>The information contained therein may be confidential or privileged, and
>its disclosure or reproduction is strictly prohibited.
>If you are not the intended recipient, please return it immediately to its
>sender at the above address and destroy it."
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>-----
>DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV
>1.8d
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
>To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET
>DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
>E-mail Archives
>Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>-----
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV
>1.8d
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
>To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET
>DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
>E-mail Archives
>Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
Donald Kyle C.I.D.+
(IPC Certified Advanced Interconnect Designer)
Senior Development Technician
281-285-7528 voice
281-285-8593 fax
[log in to unmask]
Schlumberger
Sugar Land Product Center (SPC)
Mail Drop MD155-1
155 Industrial Boulevard
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV
1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET
DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-615-7100 ext.2815
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV
1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET
DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-615-7100 ext.2815
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV
1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET
DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-615-7100 ext.2815
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
