LEADFREE Archives

August 2001

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:
Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)
Date:
Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:45:44 +0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
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) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2