Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uI041-0000VOC; Fri, 10 May 96 16:49 CDT |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 10 May 96 13:49:33 PST |
From [log in to unmask] Wed May 15 20: |
01:22 1996 |
Precedence: |
list |
X-Loop: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"tnl39.0.UFL.edxan"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Resent-From: |
|
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
The person you want to talk to is Dick Lucier 1-508-485-4680.
1] In our tests the material had 1/4 to 1/3 of the variation of the
standard two ply laminate it was targeted to replace.
2] It costs a little more than high Tg material.
3] As for the most important criteria, tight registration jobs on thin
cores.
4] If 80% is good enough you don't need to switch. I would use it for
jobs requiring 4 core and below. These are terribly unstable and CL
200+ does have an advantage here.
5] Sorry can't help here.
6] It is more suceptable to handling damage. Because the glass is not
woven you can peel the laminate if you try.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Compositech CL 200+
Author: [log in to unmask] at corp
Date: 5/10/96 5:08 AM
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.
|
|
|