 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uksKb-0000KqC; Mon, 29 Jul 96 08:25 CDT |
| Encoding: |
12 TEXT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Sat, 29 Jul 95 12:34:00 GMT |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| From [log in to unmask] Tue Jul 30 12: |
00:09 1996 |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"iDBsI.0.nUC.ZlB_n"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Microsoft Mail V3.0 |
| Message-ID: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
A while back my colleague posted an enquiry regarding protecting switches
(non-wets) during an unavoidable cleaning process.
The data regarding the process is;
Two fluxes used Kester 950 no-clean and Alpha 857
Aqueous batch cleaner is Armakleen 2000
Can anyone suggest which mask is suitable/compatible with this process.
What alternatives are available?
Again, thanks in advance.
Moss Dore
***************************************************************************
* 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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
