TECHNET Archives

August 2015

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:
Nigel Burtt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Nigel Burtt <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:18:32 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (4 lines)
From memory the "thin" and "thick" silver finish classes recognised that there were two competing but roughly equally popular IAg chemistries in the industry , each with their own process max-min deposit thicknesses and one typically thicker than the other. 

Clearly it didn't make sense for an IPC spec to have a "barn door" range from minimum "thin" to maximum "thick", hence two ranges defined. I don't recall one being "better" than the other because of the thickness

ATOM RSS1 RSS2