 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tsZpD-00006DC; Fri, 1 Mar 96 12:45 CST |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
1 Mar 1996 10:46:50 -0800 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"BQo3v1.0.gc7.oMqDn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Fri Mar 1 17: |
39:26 1996 |
| X-Mailer: |
Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2 |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Mail*Link(r) SMTP FWD>FAB- (table cleanup) E-GLASS VS. S-GLASS
Technet receipients -- as I read my received copy of the FAB-E-GLASS VS
S-GLASS
I saw a gross formatting problem between what I sent and what I received back
from technet. What I've done is to add underscore place holders (______) in
place of spaces in the table of characteristics. (Off line I'll check to see
where the cockpit problem is, I might have been using a porportional or
variable pitch character font.)
--------------------------------------
Date: 3/1/96 10:27 AM
From: Ralph Hersey
Subject: Time: 9:02 AM
OFFICE MEMO FAB: E-GLASS VS. S-GLASS Date: 3/1/96
Jim Marsico, [log in to unmask], queried about the differences between E-glass
and S-glass fabrics as follows:
The following are some of the properties:
_____________________________ Glass type
__________________|___"E"____|___"S"____|___"D"____|
Tensile, lb/sqin__|___500 k__|__600+ k__|__300+ k__|
TCE ppm/deg F_____|____2.8___|____1.6___|___1.7____|
Dk @ 10 MHz_______|___~6.1___|___~5.2___|____~4____|
Df @ 10 MHz_______|__~0.004__|__~0.007__|__~0.003__|
Ralph Hersey, [log in to unmask]
|
|
|
