 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0u9ADw-000079C; Tue, 16 Apr 96 07:51 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
16 Apr 1996 08:32:46 -0400 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Mon Apr 22 16: |
43:43 1996 |
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"ElScL2.0.0CD._UvSn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2 |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
PRF 31032, which is the spec intended to replace MIL P 55110 has the same
requirements in it for etchback, which are .0002 - .003" when specified by the
master drawing. If no etchback is specified, than a negative etchback of
.0005 is allowable.
--------------------------------------
Date: 4/15/96 10:23 AM
To: LISA GREENLEAF
From: Lyle Andersen
Can anyone inform me of the current status of the military requirement re:
etchback? A potential customer's blueprint references 55110D and
specifically calls out for etchback on type 3 boards (multilayer). However,
the board will have a commercial application and, as is common with
blueprint notes, this may be of the "boilerplate" variety. They may be
satisfied with desmear with a little education and persuasion. Thanks to
any who respond.
Lyle Anderson
Electrostar-Utah Division (formerly Lundahl Astro Circuits
Phone 801-753-4700 ext. 3040
|
|
|
