Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:25:05 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Peter,
The fabricator was suggesting that a microsection artifact was causing
the problem. I discounted their contention because the defect always
happened in connection with wicking and not in areas were there was no
wicking. It was just the fabricator trying to confuse the issue.
Sincerely,
Paul Reid
Program Coordinator
PWB Interconnect Solutions Inc.
235 Stafford Rd., West, Unit 103
Nepean, Ontario Canada, K2H 9C1
613 596 4244 ext. 229
Skype paul_reid_pwb
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: December 10, 2013 9:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing
Back to the microsection validity question - are you sure they aren't
trying to say that your microsectioning process caused the crazing, not
that it isn't a correct inspection method?
Pete
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|