 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Sun, 20 Oct 1996 16:07:01 -0500 (CDT) |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| X-Sender: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"eAWgs2.0.-RC.vVfQo"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vF5Jq-0000QMC; Sun, 20 Oct 96 16:22 CDT |
| From [log in to unmask] Wed Oct 23 14: |
33:05 1996 |
| X-Mailer: |
Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
One of our customers recently asked " Is there any correlation between
Ionic contamination testing (SEC) and surface insulation resistance
testing?" It has been my understanding that the tests probably reflect many
of the same contaminants but that there may be some not detected by one or
the other test. Is this impression true? If so, what types of contamination
may not be detected?
***************************************************************************
* 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. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
