John,
If the the european LF "contract" is so deceptive and illusory, why then
have so few scrutinized closely the technical thrustworthiness? And
what is the probability that someone will pull the emergency brake when
you've already passed the destiny station. Your blog (Pushback) is
impressive, and one really becomes both thoughtful and doubtful when
reading your lines. To be more specific, are there any references on the
point about LF alloy's negative properties, both environmentally spoken
and also concerning the electronic's reliability? We have been
cooperating with Universal for a couple of years, a lot about LF too,
but in this consortium not much said in negative terms.
You would not start a war against LF without a well based reason, would
you? (No, I don't compare with someone else). Not knowing so much about
this kind of Graal. However, I'll read your bulletins carefully.
Especially those about LF reliability.
Thanks
Inge
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Burke
Sent: den 2 oktober 2006 21:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] FW: [LF] RoHS Opposition (on Pb) isn't sound (SMT Sep
2006)
FYI,
John
_____
From: John Burke [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:25 AM
To: '(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)'; 'MA/NY DDave';
[log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: [LF] RoHS Opposition (on Pb) isn't sound (SMT Sep 2006)
The article is not up there yet Dave the site is still showing August, I
look forward to seeing it though.
Sound scientific data will always be just that. Opinions, driven only by
commercial and political pressures will never change the facts -
I guess, given the fact that rightly or wrongly the law is in place on
"no lead soldering" we will soon find out whether or (potentially very
embarrassingly) not the emperors of the lead free solder movement have
the reliability aspects adequately covered as lead free is the only game
in town.
Whether they do or not, the environmental impact of the replacements as
stated in a plethora of sources is not going to change. The replacements
have a much higher environmental burden than leaded 63/37 tin lead.
Lead in solders RoHS legislation is NOT a "slam dunk" environmental
issue, since clearly no overall assessment of environment impact has
ever taken place by the commission, note they way the commission
represent the reason for RoHS - as detailed by this excerpt from the
commission in a letter to me
:
========================================================================
===
I reply on behalf of Vice-President Margot Wallstrom and Commissioner
Stavros Dimas.
Further to my e-mail of 30 June 2006 on the same subject, I recall that
the aim of the RoHS Directive is the substitution of lead, mercury,
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) in electrical and electronic
equipment, where alternatives are available, in order to facilitate
sound recovery and prevent problems during the waste management phase.
========================================================================
====
The really interesting comment in that and every other communication
that I have received from the commission is this one:
========================================================================
====
Please note that this opinion of the Commission services is not legally
binding since a legally binding interpretation of Community legislation
is, under the Treaty, the exclusive competence of the European Court of
Justice.
Yours sincerely,
Klaus Koegler
========================================================================
====
So I guess whatever the reality of the situation at the end of the day
it will be up to the courts to decide. Whether that case is a massive
loss of revenue stream caused by substitution and subsequent failures,
inability to manufacture or failed electronics in a safety critical
situation - who knows, we can only wait and see.
I predict that the commission will make the lead in solders ban optional
and NOT obligatory by their review in 2008 at the latest.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MA/NY DDave
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 10:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [LF] RoHS Opposition (on Pb) isn't sound (SMT Sep 2006)
Hi IPC LF Listservers,
For those of us who get SMT Magazine we may have already seen the
September
2006 article by Dr Ron, (Ron Lasky), in SMT Magazine's Surface Mount
Process Optimization regular column. As soon as it is available on
www.smtmag.com one of us should post the link.
The title is " "Repeal RoHS" Movement Emerges", which is a bit ODD to me
for a Process Optimization column. Oh Well !!. SMT Magazine should
probably
change the column title to a free flowing opinion piece.
This opinion piece by Ron is extremely negative on anyone who opposes
Lead-
Free as if they are just un-informed underclass persons. Dr Ron is not
alone in this approach. In a older good book with lots of good
information
from the Univ of Maryland (CALCE) the same opinion was written for
anyone
who stands for sound engineering or even asks "Just Why are we doing
this?"
or "Where's the data?" . CALCE too, was not alone for jumping on the
current political band wagon.
(For reflection is a historical data point that the first emperor of
China
sealed in his mercury tomb, all his chief engineers that engineered his
tomb)
Anyway, I like Dr Ron, know him personally, and Dr Ron sometimes reads
this
list. Even SO for those who get the magazine let the comments begin on
his
article. I will add mine a little later.
Yours in Engineering, Dave
YiEngr, MA/NY DDave
P.S. I hope a Canadian Goose was caught by RockWellC DavyH.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
---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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
---
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e To
unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To temporarily halt or
(re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET
Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE mailing per day of all the
posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest Search the
archives of previous posts 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
-----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts 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
-----------------------------------------------------
|
