On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Henry Spencer wrote: > Bear in mind that when these references say "excellent", they may be > referring to short contact during processing, rather than prolonged > exposure.
Good point. I've been dinged before by assuming that specs were general rather than limited to a small subset of possible operating conditions. Publishing data without fully specifying test conditions is a Bad Thing. Unfortunately it's also very common. Caveat Emptor. I was under the impression that the part that failed had fairly limited exposure to peroxide, though - hours rather than months. Of course there may have been a few drops of peroxide in contact with the part for long periods while on the shelf, so who knows. > Also, if the details can be resolved (maybe even if they can't be), it > would be a Good Thing to publish this formally -- perhaps submit a > Technical Note to the Journal of Propulsion & Power? Good idea. ......Andrew -- Andrew Case | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
