 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uLxoe-0000CeC; Tue, 21 May 96 15:14 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
21 May 1996 13:17:34 -0700 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"onRZ61.0.u1A.7GYen"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Tue Jun 4 17: |
53:36 1996 |
| X-Loop: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2 |
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Subject: Time: 1:14 PM
OFFICE MEMO RE>Controlled Impedance Date: 5/21/96
If "dielectric constant" weren't a constant, we'd call it a variable wouldn't
we? (;-)
So let's propose a new term "dielectric variable" -- or should that be
"variable dielectric". That might be better yet, then we could adjust the
dielectric to fit our needs by stimulating the dielectric with frequency,
temperature, humidity, pressure, voltage, material ratios, etc.
Ralph
|
|
|
