 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uLael-0000CcC; Mon, 20 May 96 14:30 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 20 May 96 15:36:20 EDT |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Cc: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Mon May 20 17: |
20:41 1996 |
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"N-9A53.0.ZYH.6XCen"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
From: Stephen Ayotte
\\\\\\\EM Quality Engineering
\\\\\\\Bldg. 14-3 Col F5 5-1537
Subject: Fabrication
Question: IPC documentation lists feature to feature spacing
as a function of applied bias, were these numbers generated
from actual experimental data and if so what was the target
quality and reliability numbers? Were the results of that
testing documented in a technical report and is that report
still available? If so what is the report number?
**** IBM MD Product Quality Engineer****
**** OEM Quality Engineer ****
|
|
|
