 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 5 Sep 1996 10:08:56 -0500 (CDT) |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| X-Sender: |
|
| TO: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Thu Sep 5 14: |
20:43 1996 |
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"r0hjD2.0.-_A.egkBo"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uyftJ-0000RyC; Thu, 5 Sep 96 09:58 CDT |
| X-Mailer: |
Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Has anyone got any information on z-axis expansion comparisons on boards
with non-functional pads versus typical boards which do not have
non-functional pads. We have a customer who is concerned about removing the
pads from their design. Since the board is a high-layer count the pads are
causing us much grief at drill by prematurely wearing the drill bits.
Results of any tests that have been conducted (preferably with data) would
be appreciated.
David Arivett
Cuplex Inc.
***************************************************************************
* 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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
