TECHNET Archives

May 2012

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:
"Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)
Date:
Fri, 11 May 2012 18:00:47 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Having Graham respond was expected. Hearing that there was a current charge to a card, he was worried it was his AMEX.
Having you respond was tantamount to EMI.
Having Doug respond would be Tres Amigos and I would be concerned we refried the circuit.
Dewey


________________________________
From: Inge Hernefjord [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 10:12 AM
To: Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)
Cc: TechNet E-Mail Forum; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NTC

A leakage told me that you did currently charge your pun store so hard that it it became shorted and nulled for a long time.
/Inge
On 11 May 2012 17:41, Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE) <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Since Inge and Doug pinged me; this is Friday; and there is always an element of truth in what I say: I thought I would pass this along to show you do not suffer alone.
We had a non-procurable part (ceramic resistor network) and I had rejected the alternate. After several meetings concerning placement, testing, signal integrity and the like we came to a plan
I promptly told the team "Thankfully, our resistance to change did not impede our capacitance for success.
Dewey



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2