TECHNET Archives

December 2013

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:
Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:25:05 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
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] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2