 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0thghr-00005XC; Wed, 31 Jan 96 11:52 CST |
| Encoding: |
837 Text |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 96 12:56:30 EST |
| Precedence: |
list |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"Tr7rC2.0.uEF.Unw3n"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Wed Jan 31 15: |
50:01 1996 |
| Resent-From: |
|
| From: |
|
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I would like to see IPC's response on this subject because I'm under
the assumption that nailheading is no longer a reason for rejection.
(I've also been told that somewhere somebody ran tests and found
increased holewall adhesion due to the nailheading<increased cu to cu
plated sites>)(?????)
I would think that only in the case of positive etchback requirements
would nailheading really create an issue.
Am I correct or wrong in my thinking?
Groovy
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Nailheading
Author: [log in to unmask]
Date: 1/31/96 12:19 PM
Simple Question:
Has anybody found a functional defect in multilayer pwb's due to nailheading???
D.Rooke
([log in to unmask])
|
|
|
