 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uHptu-0000BqC; Fri, 10 May 96 05:58 CDT |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Fri, 10 May 1996 15:25:55 +0800 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| X-Sender: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"OBvEk1.0.RW8.D5oan"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Wed May 15 19: |
36:42 1996 |
| Message-ID: |
<19960510072553.AAA9480@DOMINIC> |
| X-Mailer: |
Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 |
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Good day, ladies and gentlemen,
I will appreciate if the users of the above laminates could comment
on the followings:
(1) The dimensional stability as compared to FR4.
(2) The price premium to FR4.
(3) What would be the most important criteria to consider for
switching from FR4 to CL 200+ ?
(4) It seems that if the yield is >80%, there is no reason to switch.
(5) What would be its classification under NEMA's nomenclature ?
(6) What are the pitfalls to observe when switching from FR4 to CL
200+ ?
(7) Last, but not the least, will the manufacturer of CL 200+ please
contact me personally via email. Just a gentle reminder that you
wouldn't run into marketing your products in this forum.
Thanking you in anticipation and have a great weekend.
|
|
|
