 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uLvLl-0000CMC; Tue, 21 May 96 12:36 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Tue, 21 May 1996 13:33:55 -0400 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| X-Sun-Charset: |
US-ASCII |
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<DesignerCouncil-request> |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"Dtks-1.0._kI.0yVen"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Tue Jun 4 17: |
47:13 1996 |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Cc: |
|
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Mitch--
Let me clarify my statement. The point that I was making was that
for any given calculation, microstrip/stripline/embedded, etc, the VALUE
for the dielectric constant MUST be the same VALUE. Which formula that
you use, SHOULD NOT have different values for the same material. That
number, as stated by several others, may vary due to many things, but the
dielectric constant value, as determined by the end product use, used in the
formula should remain the same! You agree?
Bob Vanech
|
|
|
