 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uwRYC-0000O8C; Fri, 30 Aug 96 06:15 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 07:23:48 -0400 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Fri Aug 30 09: |
17:32 1996 |
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"GzUw22.0.rK3.Zri9o"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Has anyone done testing, or incorporated as part of normal processing, the
use of
vacuum desiccating instead of baking after layer oxide coating, prior to
lay-up and
lamination.
I would appreciate any information that is available.
Bob G.
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
