LEADFREE Archives

February 2003

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:
"Zweigart, Siegmund" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)
Date:
Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:43:05 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (85 lines)
First the good point:
0,1% for each material is a number to deal with; 0,1% on product level was
also in discussion (no Idea how this could be handled
The bad point:
I think it's a number from the had (.1or even 1 Promile sounds better than
.2), but if you look at the CuSn, CuAgSn, ... suppliers Pb concentration
should be below 0.1%

Siggi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Kind regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Dr. Siegmund Zweigart
New Technology Manager

Solectron GmbH
Solectronstrasse 2              Fon. ++49 7032 998 194
D - 71083 Herrenberg         Fax  ++49 7032 998 222

e-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
internet: www.solectron.com <http://www.solectron.com> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

        ----------
        From:  Joe Fjelstad [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
        Sent:  Dienstag, 25. Februar 2003 18:11
        To:  [log in to unmask]
        Subject:  [LF] 0.1% question

        Greetings friends, 
	
        The EU decision specifies a maximum concentration limit of Pb in
lead-free solders at 0.1% by weight in a homogeneous material (not
intentionally introduced). 
	
        I have been lead to understand that when recycling tin from solder,
the level cannot be economically brought to under 0.2%, thus possibly
forcing increased mining of tin to satisfy the potential additional need for
lead-free solder. 
	
        Does anyone know the rational for the 0.1% number? Is it simply an
arbitrary number "pulled from a hat" or were there other underlying and
unstated reasons for its selection? It seems like it needs revision to
reflect practicality if it is truly arbitrary. 
	
        Thank you in advance. 
	
        Kind regards, 
        Joe    
	





	
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
        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: http://listserv.ipc.org/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: http://listserv.ipc.org/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