 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tQ5p8-0000M9C; Wed, 13 Dec 95 23:03 CST |
| Old-Return-Path: |
<miso!aol.com!CLGUno> |
| Date: |
Wed, 13 Dec 1995 22:13:09 -0500 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 15: |
29:46 1996 |
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"yG0XO3.0.e-D.L0xpm"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Resent-From: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I noted Dave Hoover's response to the question about d.s. and he suggests
resin souyrce as the reason for variability between vendor "A" and "B". I
would suggest other possibilities such as treating tension, fabric tension
control at the weaver (also lot to lot!), etc. Unfortunately there are
probably also phantom variables.
Dave, a question. What is the magnitude of the "A" vs "B" vendor difference
in d.s. with for example FR-4? Anybody else have any data (or gut feel)
regarding the between-vendor variability for the "same" resin system?
Chet Guiles
Arlon
|
|
|
