TECHNET Archives

1996

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Date:
Wed, 31 Jan 96 12:56:30 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
     I would like to see IPC's response on this subject because I'm under
     the assumption that nailheading is no longer a reason for rejection.
     (I've also been told that somewhere somebody ran tests and found 
     increased holewall adhesion due to the nailheading<increased cu to cu
     plated sites>)(?????)
     I would think that only in the case of positive etchback requirements
     would nailheading really create an issue.
     Am I correct or wrong in my thinking?
     
     Groovy


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Nailheading
Author:  [log in to unmask] 
Date:    1/31/96 12:19 PM


Simple Question: 
     
Has anybody found a functional defect in multilayer pwb's due to nailheading???
     
D.Rooke
([log in to unmask])
     
     



ATOM RSS1 RSS2