TECHNET Archives

October 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:
Graham Naisbitt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Graham Naisbitt <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:29:51 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
Gonul

As Brian Ellis said, the static method works best.

I am going to send you a copy of a paper I am giving on this subject at the IPC / SMTA Cleaning & Coating Conference in Chicago in a couple of weeks time.

Graham Naisbitt


On 31 Oct 2012, at 10:09, Gönül Özden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I need to know which method in ionic contamination measurement will be more reliable and convenient for military application static process or dynamic process. IPC-TM-650 accept both metodologies. 
> Can someone of you have an experience on this issue?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Gonul Ozden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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] 
> ______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
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