 
| Sender: |
|
| X-To: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 26 May 2016 08:08:34 -0400 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| In-Reply-To: |
<B775C05B3698439388E3171B2E74F498@bev1a0f3c0a9bc> |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp=yes; format=flowed |
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
(1) assume the area is not encaped
(2) the flux residue (no clean) are not gummy, (most likely not).
I think you should see it (but cross section is better if you know
which area to look for after the dye and pry).
my 2 cents.
jk
On May 26, 2016, at 7:13 AM, Bev Christian wrote:
> Technetters,
> Have any of you ever seen or heard of a case where someone carried
> out a dye
> and pry procedure and found the red dye inside the board after the pry
> portion of the activity? Let us assume that the person doing this
> carried
> out the procedure and adequately dried the dye before doing the
> prying part.
> :)
>
> Regards,
> Bev
> CALCE
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
