 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vS23Q-0000S6C; Mon, 25 Nov 96 08:30 CST |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| X-Authentication-Warning: |
|
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"zoQm.0.nTE.CsQco"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Tue Dec 3 09: |
48:29 1996 |
| Date: |
Mon, 25 Nov 96 06:49:59 |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Greetings,
I have an acquaintance in the industry with an interesting problem.
He is molding a flex circuit (2mil polyimide/one mil Cu)into a
particular circular shape. The circuit has PTH's at each end which
slip over pins for retention of the circuit during the molding
process. The circuit is on the outside of the bend.
The first one hundred prototypes molded without incident.
The next lot of six hundred do not posses the same physical
properties. They will not conform to the shape of the tool.
When forced into this shape, as before, they no longer stay
in place. The retention pins that functioned flawlessly before,
during the one hundred piece run, now will not retain the circuit.
I'm assuming that they were produced at the same facility, both times,
but have no evidence to support this.
What happened?
Thanks in advance.
The views stated here are not necessarily those of my employer.
[log in to unmask]@internet
602.276.7361
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
