 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain |
| Old-Return-Path: |
<simon.ipc.org!uunet.uu.net!zytec!owl!patb> |
| Date: |
Fri, 13 Dec 96 14:49:34 CST |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Mon Dec 16 08: |
45:16 1996 |
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| X-Status: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"RE-Yo1.0.AxJ.MYTio"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
simon.ipc.org!uunet.uu.net!zytec!owl!patb (RwF - ext. 355 - Pat Bailey) |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vYg5v-0000TUC; Fri, 13 Dec 96 16:28 CST |
| X-Mailer: |
Pronto E-Mail [version 2.01] |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Are there any significant differences/concerns in fabrication, assembly, or
long term reliability when comparing CEM-3 to FR-4 for double sided PTH
boards? Is it compatible with carbon direct metallization? In what
product applications is CEM-3 typically used for double sided PTH boards?
From what I've been able to gather, it is used quite a bit in Asia but not
in North America. Why (availability, end product application/reliability
reqiuirements, no significant cost advantage...)?
Regards,
Pat Bailey
Zytec Corporation
***************************************************************************
* 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. *
***************************************************************************
* If you are having a problem with the IPC TechNet forum please contact *
* Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask] *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
