 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uePUE-0000O1C; Thu, 11 Jul 96 12:25 CDT |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:32:53 -0700 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Cc: |
|
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| X-Status: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"Sk8gd1.0.XmL.rZJvn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Thu Jul 11 13: |
36:31 1996 |
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.838.14 |
| Message-ID: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
You can find the partial answer in the EP&P, July 96, pp. 32-36,
"Improving Screen Printing Yields". Hope it will help.
Quyet P.
>----------
>From: Dirk Bellamy[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 1996 7:56 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: ASSY: Ultrasonics
>
>Hey technetters!
>I was wondering, does anyone out there have experience with
>ultrasonics? Specifically, we are looking into the possibility of
>acquiring
>an ultrasonic stencil cleaner for SMT screens contaminated with low
>residue paste.
>Could anyone out there give me reasons why ultrasonics are or are not
>worth the expense?
>Thanks!
>-Dirk Bellamy
>MFG Eng, Current Electronics Inc.
>[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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
