Doug,
First of all, sorry for my harsh response.
Pls believe me, I am far away from theoretical or philosofical thoughts.
As PCB manufacturer we are the first in the life chain of PCB. I have to
look forward several years to estimate what will be the real demand from the
market,as well I have to estimate how HASL will be splitted into alternative
finishing - this is matter of investment in time ( to develope the process)
and money ( to set up production lines). I am being asked by my management
about it by one hand and by our customers by second hand.This is the reason
for questions "why" and serious are the proposed dated and goals.
We made here several mistakes due to overestimation of some trends, for
example, we invested a lot of efforts to develope so called "universal
finishing" ( Ni-Au-Pd), but there is no demand for such finishing.I am even
not sure today,if we started by ourself or we have been pushed by the
suppliers of chemistry with their apocaliptic future.
Some of our customers are very deep in outsourcing ( we are suppling
directly to assembly subcontractor,which further ship the asssembled PCB to
another subcontractor etc) and they are leaving the "lead free" to
subcontractors to find the solution.
My personal impression is, that our industry is working on sectorial base ,
each one in the "life chain" is looking only on his part without attempt to
understand the whole picture and the reasons.
As I mentioned in my previous letters, PCB industry made already half way to
lead free by implementing of alternative finishings - the trigger was demand
for flat pads. Some companies missunderstood the whole picture and tried to
develope both materials and equipment for HASL finishing based on lead free
solders.To my understanding,just trying to look on whole picture this is
dead end direction - the process of HASL is hardly controlable, visually
this is nasty, problematic to soldering, shorter shelf life, but "this is
lead free" . In my company I blocked this direction . I hope I was right.
Just think about it, all of us will be forced to invest a lot of efforts to
implement new regulation while the environmental benefit seems to be very
questionable.
I hope I made my point a little bit clearer.
Best regards
Edward
Edward Szpruch
Eltek , Manager of Process Engineering
P.O.Box 159 ; 49101 Petah Tikva Israel
Tel ++972 3 9395050 , Fax ++972 3 9309581
e-mail [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romm, Doug [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: ä àåâåñè 16 2001 18:25
> To: '(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)'; 'Edward Szpruch'
> Subject: RE: [LF] AW: [LF] Clarification on Leadfree Listserve
> question
>
> Edward,
>
> First, thanks for the feedback. I don't know if all responders have
> copied the entire forum but thus far here's what I've received:
>
> In favor of my proposal: 3
> Not in favor of my proposal: 3
>
> Second, please read through my suggestion again. I am not suggesting to
> split the forum. I am suggesting to 'add' another forum specifically for
> the intent of holding the debate on viability, need, merit, etc of the
> lead-free movement. Those that believe lead-free should not happen and
> continue to debate the issue can do so on the new, proposed forum. They
> can still subscribe to the current forum. Those of us on the current
> forum who have no interest in the recurring debate messages would not
> subscribe to the new, proposed forum.
>
> Third, no, my whole interest is not in fluxes, solder pastes, stencils,
> and IR profiles. Please re-read my statement where I say :
>
> 'The first forum (original) could continue with technical discussion about
> lead-free progress, political updates on lead-free, environmental inputs
> that will affect timing of lead-free conversion, etc. This would meet the
> need of many forum subscribers who are actively working on implementing
> lead-free processes, materials development, etc.'
>
> My proposal in a nutshell is to simply allow the forum members who are
> against the lead-free movement to continue to debate the issue on the
> separate, new, proposed forum.
>
> I have spoken with several other forum subscribers off-line who agree with
> a separate forum for the 'debate'. They are moving forward with plans to
> implement lead-free processes and products. No, they don't have blinders
> on (my opinion). But they believe the lead-free conversion will continue
> to progress and they're working towards implementing processes and
> products.
>
> This is the end of my discussion on the proposal I have made. I'm not
> going to 'debate' my proposal about a forum for 'lead-free debate'. I
> appreciate your feedback. Respectfully, I will decline further discussion
> on this proposal.
>
>
>
> Regards, Doug romm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Szpruch [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 11:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] AW: [LF] Clarification on Leadfree Listserve question
>
>
> Marc,Doug,
> I vote against.
> I think this is mistake to split between "why" and "how". Really your
> whole
> interest in this forum is limited to fluxes,soldering pastes,stensils and
> IR
> profiles ?
> Edward
>
> Edward Szpruch
> Eltek , Manager of Process Engineering
> P.O.Box 159 ; 49101 Petah Tikva Israel
> Tel ++972 3 9395050 , Fax ++972 3 9309581
> e-mail [log in to unmask]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dittes Marc (CPD AIT PGP) [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: ä àåâåñè 16 2001 16:26
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [LF] AW: [LF] Clarification on Leadfree Listserve question
>
> >
> > Great idea!
> > I would not restrict the second forum to people that believe lead-free
> is
> > a
> > bad thing since then they think that only this position exists, but a
> > split
> > would be beneficial to all.
> >
> > Marc Dittes
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Romm, Doug [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> > Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 16. August 2001 16:09
> > An: [log in to unmask]
> > Betreff: [LF] Clarification on Leadfree Listserve question
> >
> >
> >
> > I suggest the current lead-free forum be broken into the following 2
> > separate forums:
> >
> > **.lead-free.progress
> > **.lead-free.debaters
> >
> > The second forum above (new) would be for those current forum members
> who
> > prefer to steer every conversation towards 'why lead-free is wrong and
> > should not be pursued'. The 'debate' forum would exist specifically for
>
> > those who believe lead-free is a bad thing and espouse that anyone who
> > pursues or even discusses lead-free advances is misguided.
> >
> > The first forum (original) could continue with technical discussion
> about
> > lead-free progress, political updates on lead-free, environmental inputs
>
> > that will affect timing of lead-free conversion, etc. This would meet
> the
> > need of many forum subscribers who are actively working on implementing
> > lead-free processes, materials development, etc. Forum members who
> happen
> > to believe that lead-free 'will happen' (right or wrong), prefer not to
> > receive continual debate e-mail on the issue, and would still like to
> stay
> > up will all other advancements or developments on lead-free could then
> > continue on the current forum. Those current members who prefer to
> > continually debate the viability, reasoning, etc of the lead-free
> movement
> > could subscribe to both the current forum and the new 'debaters' forum.
> > On
> > the new 'debaters' forum they would be free to vent their frustration
> with
> > the lead-free movement and those forum members who are attempting to
> > implement lead-free processes.
> >
> > This type of approach would allow each forum member to 'choose' whether
> or
> > not they prefer to receive the forum posts concerning 'debate' of the
> > lead-free movement. Those who don't prefer to receive all of the
> 'debate'
> > postings would simply not sign-up to that forum.
> >
> > It seems like a fairly straightforward solution is to set up a 'debate'
> > forum for those who prefer to continue the debate.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Doug Romm
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charbonneau, Richard A [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > < <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> ]
> > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 4:17 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [LF] Clarification on Leadfree Listserve question
> >
> >
> > Hi Jack,
> >
> > I don't see a problem either way. There is precedence for "dibbing-up"
> > the
> > subject matter (all one needs to do is to look at the newsgroups). For
> > example, I subscribe to 5 newsgroups in "rec.audio" category as follows.
>
> >
> > rec.audio.high-end
> > rec.audio.marketplace
> > rec.audio.misc
> > rec.audio.opinion
> > rec.audio.pro
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian Ellis [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > < <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> ]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 2:46 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [LF] Clarification on Leadfree Listserve question
> >
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > In industry, we have a great tendency to compartmentalise issues, even
> > creating "hermetic empires" within companies in the hopes that a
> > department will become "indispensable". This often leads to internecine
> > wars between the departments. Today, we are beginning to realise the
> > futility of this. Concurrent engineering is just one manifestation of
> > this increasing intelligence. Modern technical specs which no longer say
>
> > that thou shalt use such-and-such type of flux and thou shalt clean the
> > residues with so-and-so type of solvent (and may all the devils from
> > hell descend on you if you dare deviate from this by one jot!) are
> > another. There is still a compartimentalisation manifest in the fields
> > of sustainability, where we must take a "cradle-to-grave" approach. As a
>
> > member of the Executive Team of the IEE Professional Network on
> > Engineering for a Sustainable Future, I appeal to you not to
> > compartimentalise this issue. Please allow us to take a holistic
> > approach which must, by definition, look at ALL the issues involved as
> > one subject, be they technical, commercial, environmental, economic,
> > political and, yes, even emotional. We, on this planet, are human beings
>
> > and we have feelings. I feel that separation of technical issues from
> > the rest will degrade the holistic approach. There is a risk it will set
>
> > the techies apart from the rest, in their little "empire" or, at least,
> > an ivory tower where they can feel isolated from the real world that we
> > have on loan for future generations.
> >
> > In addition, how on earth can you guarantee that the "Technical LF" will
>
> > not evolve the same way as the current one has? This started out
> > essentially as technical and then subscribers began to realise that many
>
> > other issues were involved and started to say so. It would only need one
>
> > person to suggest in the technical forum that, e.g., a lead-free alloy
> > with n% of thallium is a perfect drop-in substitute for Sn63 when it
> > would all start again.
> >
> > Finally, Jack, I think that most of the subscribers to this forum are
> > "techies" (scientists, engineers and technicians). I do not like the
> > idea of discrimination between narrow-minded ones who can see only what
> > is directly in front of their noses and have no interest in the broader
> > issues and those who already have a broader view. Is not this a form of
> > class distinction?
> >
> > Please, Jack, don't!
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > --
> >
> > -----
> > 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
> > To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> > Leadfree NOMAIL
> > 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>
> > < <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
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > --
> >
> > -----
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > --
> > -----
> > 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
> > To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> > Leadfree NOMAIL
> > 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>
> > < <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
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > --
> > -----
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > -------
> > 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
> > To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> > Leadfree NOMAIL
> > 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
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > -------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> 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
> To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> Leadfree NOMAIL
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
