TECHNET Archives

February 2000

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:
Douglas Pauls <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:24:08 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
In a message dated 02/23/2000 3:09:10 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

>
>  This is the main reason why SIR testing is, in many cases, useless to
>  qualify a flux: you qualify it under lab conditions, totally ignoring
>  the fact that its behavious will alter in practice due to it mixing with
>  external contaminants not present on your test vehicles.
>

SIR USELESS?  Gasp!! Burn the Heretic!!!!!!!!!!

SIR can be useful, even as a lab tool, you just have to use the right
combination of materials, processes, environment and data interpretation.  I
would agree that we have a long way to go before our existing methods are a
good and true measure of field performance.

Doug Pauls

##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################

ATOM RSS1 RSS2