 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0v3YLN-0000PYC; Wed, 18 Sep 96 20:55 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:04:34 -0400 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Thu Sep 19 10: |
16:24 1996 |
| Message-ID: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"uQe503.0.5zC.iWAGo"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dennis
The statement about "Hole wall dielectric/plated hole separation" is a direct
carry over from IPC-RB-276 Table 10 which as been in existence since 1992. It
is the intent to allow hole-hole-wall-pullaway to any extent as long as the
hole is not collapsed and the function is not degraded. This was a change
from IPC-ML-950 which only allowed 40% hole-wall-pullaway. This is the first
time any question has come up since RB-276 was issued and the suppliers and
users seem satisfied.
Phil Hinton
[log in to unmask]
***************************************************************************
* 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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
