TECHNET Archives

1996

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Received:
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0tjBTq-00005UC; Sun, 4 Feb 96 14:56 CST
Old-Return-Path:
Date:
Sun, 4 Feb 1996 16:00:18 -0500
Precedence:
list
X-Loop:
Message-ID:
X-Status:
Status:
O
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/2510
TO:
Return-Path:
From [log in to unmask] Mon Feb 5 16:
08:30 1996
Subject:
From:
Resent-Message-ID:
<"S97yX3.0.sPF.irH5n"@ipc>
Resent-Sender:
Resent-From:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
To all those subscibers I've misled,

I made the statement "...Entek doesn't work on flex..."  This was a
misleading statement and I'd like to clarify myself.

The flex manufacture I was working for wanted very much to approve an
annti-ox coating for a very large OEM.  The problem encounterd was that this
program had stiffeners and/or heat sinks on the parts.  These
heatsinks/stiffeners created hot spots in the IR reflow which can cook off
the coating.  It was for this reason that I made the above statement. 

I meant in no way to discourage the use of such coatings on flex,  but only
to be careful.

As a former engineer in the flex industry, I'm a big proponent of flex
circuity, and should be more care about throwing statements out onto this
forum without more clarification.

Again I apologize,

[log in to unmask]

ps. Though I've learned my lesson, I'll give my address for further
chewing-out.  



ATOM RSS1 RSS2