 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uZhgq-0000D4C; Fri, 28 Jun 96 12:50 CDT |
| Encoding: |
30 TEXT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Jun 96 12:57:00 CDT |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"3CFgL.0.8zB.pj1rn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Fri Jun 28 14: |
41:01 1996 |
| X-Loop: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Microsoft Mail V3.0 |
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dirk,
You should also check out IPC-9501 and IPC SM 786A ??
Thanks
Mike Yuen
[log in to unmask]
----------
From: TechNet-request
To: Dirk_Bellamy
Cc: TechNet
Subject: Re: Moisture Sensitivity
Date: Friday, June 28, 1996 9:23AM
Dirk, have a look at the 1995 ECTC proceedings, for an excellent paper by R.
Shook and others. From memory, a portion of this paper looked at the
moisture
absorbtion/desorbtion from components that were moved from ambient
conditions to a dry box, a number of times. If you are trying to set up a
factory policy, I think this will be of use.
Regards
Olly
|
|
|
