 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tNlwt-0000MFC; Thu, 7 Dec 95 13:25 CST |
| Encoding: |
9 Text |
| Old-Return-Path: |
<miso!ccmail.us.dell.com!Nancy_Nelson> |
| Date: |
Thu, 07 Dec 95 12:13:26 CST |
| Precedence: |
list |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 15: |
26:42 1996 |
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"zALTF.0.T_F.g-pnm"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I was wondering if anyone has Data concerning the implications of
loosening the standard .2 minimum Nickel Plating Thickness (class 2)
(IPC-RB-276), to a .1 minimum.
Thanks In Advance For any response,
Nancy
|
|
|
