Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:08:22 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-548912@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <ben@benodee.com>
Received: from mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ([167.206.5.68] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5)
  with ESMTP id 548898 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:57:48 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=167.206.5.68; envelope-from=ben@benodee.com
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (ool-4354fe69.dyn.optonline.net [67.84.254.105])
 by mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar  3 2004))
 with ESMTP id <0I7X00MFU6VI8P@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for
 lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:57:18 -0500 (EST)
X-Original-Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:57:20 -0500
From: Ben Diss <ben@benodee.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Acetone on carbon fiber
In-reply-to: <list-548828@logan.com>
X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Reply-to: ben@benodee.com
X-Original-Message-id: <41AA9010.8050300@benodee.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2)
 Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
References: <list-548828@logan.com>

I'd love to know more about this.

Marvin Kaye wrote:

> Posted for <lancair@ustek.com>:
> 
>  Studies at Airlink support your process.  Bonding strength is often 2x
> stronger without the acetone wipe.
>  
>  R. Simon, N301ES
>  
> [ my personal test counter that idea, but my shop has
> bridgeports and stuff that needs oil and compressed air -Rob ]
> 
> -- 
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
>