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: |
|
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: |
|
|
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.
|
|
|