 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uAOaY-00006jC; Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:23 CDT |
| Encoding: |
31 Text |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:25:26 cst |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"JTSwZ1.0.wa9.f91Un"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 16: |
11:50 1996 |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Cc: |
|
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hello Jack - we have had good success with perimeter heating via 4
independent nozzles on 20 and 25 mil pitch parts using nitrogen. We
did have to do a considerable amount of process characterization for
our pwa population but the system works well.
Dave Hillman
Rockwell Collins
[log in to unmask]
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Assy: Semi-Auto Fine Pitch Rework Machines
Author: [log in to unmask] at ccmgw1
Date: 4/19/96 2:15 PM
I am investing in a fine pitch rework station for low volume placement and
rework of .020 in. c-c PQFP parts. I am interested in users experience with
variable perimeter heating vs nozzle heating. Which type of heating have
you had the better results using? Any other related comments would be
appreciated.
Thanks,
Jack Tippit
Wilcox Electric
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|
