Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0t6Jr8-0000HVC; Fri, 20 Oct 95 10:59 CDT |
Encoding: |
13 TEXT |
Old-Return-Path: |
<miso!empf.nawc-ad-indy.navy.mil!crawfoj> |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Oct 95 10:54:00 EST |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Message-ID: |
<3087800E@MSMAIL-GTWY> |
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 15: |
09:17 1996 |
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"v98U41.0.55E.9TyXm"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Mailer: |
Microsoft Mail V3.0 |
X-Loop: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>From the EMPF HelpLine: One method used is to de-mark the components
completely. At least one vendor of "micro-blasting' equipment (Crystal Mark,
Glendale CA 818-240-7520) markets automated/semi-automated systems to demark
components for users that want a "clean" top. (Some folks like to play the
"value-added" game and test components then remark with a unique number;
some folks just want to hide the component so they can crank in some extra
profit by sole sourcing the replacement parts--bummer). There are always
questions about ESD with the extra handling and this removal method, but
there has been some research in this area. We have had a project in the past
that dealt with ESD/microblasting and we have an engineer that can discuss
this further if you wish. Call the EMPF HelpLine at 317.226.5616
(Indianapolis) or e-mail to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|