 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Type: |
Text/Plain |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
14 May 96 9:59:00 |
| From [log in to unmask] Thu May 16 13: |
06:33 1996 |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"swRQn3.0.Y-A.Oy9cn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uJLWT-0000FFC; Tue, 14 May 96 09:56 CDT |
| Cc: |
|
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Stephen,
I would be very interested in the results of your tests, please.
I've heard a pretty reputable person in the SMT industry who says
that using the SM-dams will cause more contaminents to be
trapped between the pads.
How are you planning to test for this? Will you be using the dendritic
growth between pads test using bias voltage and DI water? That was
what he used in his testing.
Thanks,
Charlie Barker <[log in to unmask]>
713/276-3328
|
|
|
