In a recent posting Erik de Kluizenaar discussed the attractiveness of pure
plated tin as a component termination finish and offered his thoughts on the
effects of various additives in preventing the one big concern, whiskers. He
commented that billions of products have been Sn100 plated over the past
twenty years by his company and others, without any reports of whiskers. He
stated his belief that the risk of using "modern Sn100 finish" is therefore
"low." On the other hand, he stated that the finish is not "mature" and
asked for forum participants to share what they know about the problem. He
also is seeking a good whisker test, which in spite of this record of
success would seem to be highly desirable to confirm that a given "modern"
plating process is also "mature" and safe enough to use in a
high-reliability application.
The lack of such a test has been commented on in most discussions of the
whisker problem, and I have nothing to offer other than to repeat the
reference which others have made to NASA's web site that serves as a
compendium of what is known, http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/. But I am
interested in contrasting Mr. de Kluizenaar's discussion of metallurgy
(which is original, I think, and offers the prospect of some confirming
experiments) with the statement he made twice in the first paragraph that
nickel and noble metals are "extremely environmentally hostile", and that
"lead-free, tin-based solderable component finishes are seen as the
environmentally friendly alternative for tin-lead."
These statements are not in the domain of metallurgy but of environmental
science. Perhaps he would be willing to share with us what (or who) caused
him to arrive at his belief about nickel and noble metals, especially since
it seems so counter-intuitive. (People carry coins made of nickel in their
hands and pockets to no one's harm that I know of. People wear jewelry made
of gold and platinum and eat using silverware. Palladium is used in
catalytic converters to reduce air pollution. Just what is it in the
environment that is being harmed by the use of these metals in electronics?
People? Fish? Do we have any statistics? Is it getting worse? Does the risk
to the environment exceed the risk of product failure from using tin
plating?)
The use of the passive-voice "are seen" avoids the need to tell us who sees.
In the absence of any further information, I would conclude that those who
think that nickel, silver, platinum, palladium, and gold in electronics are
bad for the environment are the same ones who have decided that lead in
electronics is bad for the environment, but who have failed to provide the
data to support their decision. I have expressed my concern before that the
people who want to take away lead from electronic products won't stop there,
and these statements heighten that concern. So far, they appear willing to
accept tin, but how much longer before they add copper to the
"environmentally hostile" list? If most people - especially technical people
- don't demand supporting data before giving their assent and engaging in
research to figure out how to comply, what is to stop it? Common sense? Or
perhaps the unfeasibility of getting by without it - should that be the
determinant? It wasn't long ago that technical people were saying that they
couldn't get by without lead.
We don't know their names, but somehow these opinion makers seem to have a
great deal of power to decide what is politically correct, to convince some
and impose these beliefs on others, supposedly for the good of us all and
our progeny, and to brand those of us who oppose them as hostile, not to
their ideas and tactics, but to the environment. This means of achieving a
desired end is not new, of course. It continues to be used because it is so
effective.
Companies other than Mr. de Kluizenaar's have been spending a lot of money
recently investigating a whole range of finishes trying to appease people
who have decided that we need to learn to do without lead in electronics,
and now it would appear based on his statements that these companies should
have searched out and checked with these powerful people first to get
approval of these projects. In any case, now that the unacceptability of
these finishes is "known", is it not only logical that these companies
should abandon their efforts and focus on making tin work? What a waste!
A few leadfree forum participants have expressed dismay that political
expressions such as this are cluttering up their inbox. (I'm guessing that
these people would categorize an unsubstantiated claim about an
environmental risk as "technical" and the analysis of the claim as
"political.") These people do not want their attention diverted from the
business at hand, which is to find a technical solution that will satisfy
the new "reality" - never mind whether there is any technical justification
for their efforts. However, if nameless people can adjust reality at will,
and can declare as unacceptable the solution that others have just invested
time and money in, those participants need to be warned that they may need
to switch promptly to working on a solution that remains acceptable, at
least for a while longer.
The alternative is for people who do not share the desire for such a
political environment to take the risk and challenge the elite who would
deprive us of our freedoms so as to achieve their version of a brave new
environmentally sound world with them in control.


Gordon Davy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------