LEADFREE Archives

October 2006

Leadfree@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"James, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)
Date:
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:15:11 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (106 lines)
........... but automotive electronics are covered by the ELV

directive...... don't worry the Japanese car manufacturers have been

taking the lead out of cars for a long time now



Regards,

 

Chris

 



-----Original Message-----

From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Davy, Gordon

Sent: 16 October 2006 19:31

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [LF] Let's be honest!



John Burke has questioned whether "the only risk reliability factor for

electronic products required to comply with the RoHS directive is in the

soldering impacting the life of the components and board."  Of course it

is not, as I discussed in my original posting. My comments prompting his

question were in direct response to Werner's comments about loss of life

of boards due to reflow soldering. But I like his comment about "the

global beta site test of lead free reliability." 



John, as for the reliability of the anti-lock brakes in your daughter's

car, you can rest easy for now since automotive electronics are not

covered by RoHS. It should be remembered that failures due to causes

related to RoHS are not the only possible failures, and where a failure

could cause loss of life, manufacturers have always had to design with

possible failures in mind. As I said in my original posting, "The issue

is not whether the risk is nonzero but whether it is tolerable. That is,

in considering options, one must compare risk, benefit, and cost."



The well-publicized (I received at least six emails within two days)

SWATCH failures were due to the growth of tin whiskers, a topic which I

previously addressed. Given that some RoHS-compliant products have now

been on the market since well before the first of July, the absence of

other publicly identified examples of RoHS-related failures suggests to

me that there will not be an avalanche of such failures. I think that if

for some product there were a huge number of failures (say ten percent

of the number sold), the news would be as hard to hide as the laptop

battery problem. 



In fact, when product failures do become known, it will be important to

determine whether the failure was inherently due to having to comply

with RoHS or simply due to a manufacturer's failure to get the kinks

worked out of the design, materials, and processes. As John pointed out,

the industry has gone through other major changes in technology since

the days of DIPs and axial components with leads inserted in

plated-through holes. It survived those changes, and I predict that it

will survive this change too.



And lest anyone get the notion that I have become "soft on RoHS,"  my

opposition to the draft directive began in 1999, at a time when I

thought that (and I still think that) there was some prospect for

derailing the legislation if opposition could be (had been) mobilized. I

repeat that this directive adds cost (huge!) without value. I just don't

think that exaggeration is warranted or wise.



The big RoHS news I still expect will come when 



        a) manufacturers of non-compliant hardware start getting cited

by the compliancy police in one or more EU Member States, or 



        b) manufacturers of compliant hardware go to court to seek

injunctive relief from non-policing of their non-compliant competitors. 



Also, we can be quite certain that environmental activist groups such as

Greenpeace will be vigilant. Does anyone doubt that the people who

conducted the analysis of the pre-RoHS laptop computer are at this

moment analyzing electronic products put on the market after July 1?

Does anyone doubt that Greenpeace would go to court with their findings?

They won't keep any nonconformance they find secret.





------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV

1.8d

To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text

in

the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree

To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks

send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)

Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives

Please visit IPC web site

http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional

information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100

ext.2815

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------



-----------------------------------------

This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential

information intended for a specific individual and purpose.  If you

are not the intended recipient, delete this message.  If you are

not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or

taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2