 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uQH2b-0000CMC; Sun, 2 Jun 96 12:34 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Wed Jun 5 17: |
05:02 1996 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"BcrIZ3.0.2kF.L2Tin"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| Date: |
Sun, 2 Jun 1996 13:40:33 -0400 |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dave Hoover:
Help me out here please. From the point of view of the inexperienced, it
seems that when the delamination occurs at the copper/oxide interface, it
seems to the uninitiated that it is simply because the bond between the oxide
ant the prepreg is stronger than the bond between the oxide and surface. So,
if you had a VERY GOOD oxide, it would perform like this, as you want the
oxide/copper bond to be the weak link. True??
Where is the hole in my logic??
Rudy Sedlak
|
|
|
