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
X400-Content-Type:
P2-1988 ( 22 )
Old-Return-Path:
Date:
30 Aug 1996 10:21:24 -0500
X-Status:
Precedence:
list
Resent-From:
Conversion:
Allowed
Disclose-Recipients:
Prohibited
Resent-Sender:
TechNet-request [log in to unmask]
MIME-Version:
1.0
Status:
O
Priority:
normal
X-Loop:
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/6031
Content-Return:
Allowed
X400-MTS-Identifier:
[/c=US/admd=MCI/prmd=Honeywell/; 06638322706F452A-HW-MTA-AZ]
TO:
"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> (Return requested)
Message-Id:
<06638322706F452A*/c=US/admd=MCI/prmd=Honeywell/o=AZ-MTA/ou=MSMail/ou=CAS/s=Edwards/g=Ted/i=A/@MHS>
Return-Path:
<TechNet-request>
From [log in to unmask] Fri Aug 30 16:
50:43 1996
X400-Recipients:
non-disclosure;
X400-Originator:
Received:
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0uwVGy-0000P8C; Fri, 30 Aug 96 10:14 CDT
Resent-Message-ID:
<"lpdfh3.0.qfE.6Lm9o"@ipc>
Subject:
From:
"Edwards, Ted A (AZ75)" <[log in to unmask]>
Alternate-Recipient:
Allowed
X400-Received:
by /c=US/admd=MCI/prmd=Honeywell/; converted ( IA5-Text); Relayed; 30 Aug 1996 10:21:24 -0500 by mta HW-MTA-AZ in /c=US/admd=MCI/prmd=Honeywell/; converted ( IA5-Text); Relayed; 30 Aug 1996 10:21:24 -0500
Original-Encoded-Information-Types:
IA5-Text
Content-Identifier:
06638322706F452A
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
When we were in the board fabrication business, we did not store layers in a 
vacuum with desiccant but  when we used vacuum frame we would pull a vacuum 
and hold it for more than 30 minutes before lamination.  When we switched to 
a vacuum lamination we continued to use a vacuum in the press and hold 
before lamination.  We also pulled a vacuum on the prepreg and back filled 
it's storage chamber with dry nitrogen.  The froth at the edge of the board 
when down but we did not know if that was from the vacuum steps or the fact 
we went to low pressure lamination when we switched to vacuum lamination.
 ----------
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Vacuum Desiccating
Date: Friday, August 30, 1996 6:38AM

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.        *
***************************************************************************

***************************************************************************
* 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.        *
***************************************************************************



ATOM RSS1 RSS2