IPC-600-6012 Archives

April 2007

IPC-600-6012@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:
Werner Engelmaier <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
(Combined Forum of D-33a and 7-31a Subcommittees)
Date:
Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:10:07 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
Hi Tom,
> I spent a good deal of time Friday trying to find out. So far, they're
> telling me that the study was funded by the government and can't be
> released. 
> Freedom-of-Information Act?

> I'll keep digging since I thought the industry in general had
> come to the same conclusion that in today's world of better processes and
> materials, along with process control, etchback is a liability more than an
> asset. Many high reliability customers have reduced the maximum etchback
> allowed on their product for that reason, 
> Agreed

> but have not yet allowed desmear
> because they don't want to invest time to qualify  a supplier's desmear
> process.
> I do not understand what that mens, how can you not have/allow desmear? 
> Isn't it the same process only by a different name?
> 
> 
Werner



**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2