On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:16:11 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bull****.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)

Hundred layers?

Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.

I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.

That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.


Then quit posturing and show us!

Granted, there's not one second I buy this, but let's see
what you come up with.