 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uRfPr-0000D9C; Thu, 6 Jun 96 08:47 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 06 Jun 96 08:51:44 CST |
| Precedence: |
list |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| From [log in to unmask] Thu Jun 6 09: |
56:47 1996 |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"c_dm71.0.vwE.E6kjn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-Id: |
<9605068340.AA834079139@smtpgate> |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Can someone direct me toward existing INDEPENDENT studies done on
comparing various SMT equipment (particularly P&P)?
I am currently involved in evaluating SMT equipment for a low to
medium volume, high mix, specialty PCBA's (high temp & vib with
possible TAB applications). As with any consumer issue, I'm getting
varied reports on what the equipment can do. I'm getting the "Our
latest software rev will take care of that" speech on some equipment.
Also, I am attending NEPCON East to get more info. I was wondering
other than comparing spec.'s (speed, accuracy, heat profiling, etc.),
what are the intangibles that need to be considered?
Marc DeCantillon
Mfg. Eng. Group Leader
Baker Hughes Inteq
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|
