Well, think about that for a moment. When forced to build electronic
devices with inferior reliability, where do you think they go?
Recycling can be enforced without reducing the lead in solder. Reduction
of lead and other chemicals that enhance reliability is what keeps those
products away from either the recycling bin or the landfill. It doesn't
take too much of a light bulb to figure that one out.
The terms "RoHS" and "reduction of waste" are incongruous.
As far as staying quiet, do we need to shoot the EU lefties before they
hear us? There have been reams and reams of papers printed and presented
detailing why RoHS is the biggest boo-boo of the century. This email
string contains but a fraction of the thousands of articles and white
papers that have been presented, to no avail.
Bob just provided you and impressive list. Don't you think that at least
a little bit of that is/was known to the EU loonies before or during the
legislation of RoHS?
Pull your head out of the sand. They made a grave mistake; face it for
what it is and quit trying to sugarcoat it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] [tinwhiskers] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review
conference report
Bob - an impressive list, so why aren't world manufacturing leaders and
organisations pressuring politicians to act on it........ why are other
national enterprises staying quiet..........
On one point you are wrong - the EU won't be filling their landfill with
waste electronics because that was the point of the WEEE directive, to
enforce recycling. RohS and WEEE started life as a single piece of
legislation, the Restriction element not so much being to keep
substances out of landfill but to keep them out of the recycling
process.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Landman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 January 2010 18:09
To: '(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)'; James, Chris
Cc: tin whiskers forum
Subject: RE: [LF] [tinwhiskers] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review
conference report
Here's a partial list of problems ignored by the EU and major
manufacturers as they have switched to lead-free manufacturing to comply
with the EU lead ban.
PREFACE:
The waivers for defense and high rel products are essentially useless
(unless one sends parts to a replater to dip them in molten lead) as the
major component vendors have rushed to embrace lead-free manufacturing.
They have, in many cases, mixed their lead and lead-free parts by using
the same part numbers for both. They have refused to make available to
RoHS exempt industries lead bearing platings on components.
1) Microsoft's XBOX as has been widely discussed on this and other
forums
2) increased number of failures in recently purchased PC products
3) subject matter experts of published environmental tests show
increased amounts of failures in lead-free manufacturing (mechanical
connection failures) including parts popping off boards, voids in BGA
balls, etc... Manufacturers continue to state lead-free manufacturing is
"ok", "no problems found"
4) Conformal coatings mitigate the growth of tin whiskers (and not
using lead in solder guarantees that whiskers will grow) yet commercial
product manufacturers (including a major telecom product provider who
shall remain nameless) told me and several others on a teleconference
that I attended on behalf of the Dept of Homeland Security, that "the
selling price of the products cannot bear the cost adder of conformal
coating".
5) Swatch watch company gets a waiver to use lead as millions of their
watches fail due to tin whisker shorts on crystal oscillator
6) FDA forced Medtronic to recall their implanted cardiac defibrilators
(from patients bodies) when whiskers shorted the devices.
http://www.fda.gov/ora/inspect_ref/itg/itg42.html
7) a major Ethernet switch maker has senior field service personnel who
have not been told of the potential for tin whisker growth so when
failures happen, boards are simply replaced. Reason given is that
"customers pay for service contracts so who cares what the reason is
that they fail so long as we repair them quickly".
8) a major contract assembler states at a recent IEEE Reliability
Society meeting that they see no problems with lead-free manufacturing
yet an aside from one of their customers was said to me that "of course
they don't see the problems, we see them AFTER we ship the product."
9) all the whisker failures reported here
http://nepp.nasa.gov/WHISKER/failures/index.htm plus I am advised by
NASA that they have confidentiality agreements with many others who call
in to report problems which prevents them from listing the failures
10) I was recently at a national meeting on lead-free manufacturing
where it was admitted that on many warplane systems there are lead-free
manufacturing problems but the manufacturers refuse to go public with
the information.
11) Anonymous (Terrestrial Application) - Field Failures First Observed
Circa 2003
http://nepp.nasa.gov/WHISKER/anecdote/2003ckt_breaker/index.html
12) over 15,000 papers have been published on the subject of tin
whiskers http://www.dbicorporation.com/rohsbib.htm yet to this day,
no-one can state why they grow or how without lead to stop them, how
quickly they grow, how long they will grow.
13) white paper by the AIA outlining the problems
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/wp_leadfree_0208.pdf
14) As was recently posted here by Denny Fritz:
A large amount of information has been accumulated in the
Aerospace/Defense community about lead based versus lead-free
solders/solder joints. A good place to start to tap this knowledge has
recently been gathered at the Defense Acquisition University web site:
https://acc.dau.mil/leadfree
I will point out the second item on the list - the Lead-free Electronics
"Manhattan Project" to compile the "best practices" for use of lead
based or lead-free solder in harsh environements. 15 leading
metallurgical scientists in the US met for two weeks to compile this 350
page baseline. Since then, the same 15 met again in August to outline
the required research to close the knowledge gaps between leaded and
lead-free solder, particularly in harsh environments.
15) The AIA and others are proposing to the US Dept of Defense a $95M
project which will take three years and which will hopefully come up
with solutions to the present problems with lead-free manufacturing.
The bottom line is, that util the problems outlined above are solved, if
the EU does not want people to die from an increased amount of failures
in transportation, electric power, medical devices, not to mention the
waste and expense of filling landfills to overflowing with an increasing
number of failed electronic products, the EU should immediately retract
the RoHS ban on lead in manufacturing electronic assemblies and
components and instead specify that at least 5% lead should be in all
tin coatings and solders.
Bob Landman
H&L Instruments, LLC
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James, Chris
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 11:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] [tinwhiskers] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review
conference report
What evidence do you have to be able to assert this defamatory
statement:
"Knowing the EU and how the major manufacturers suck up as they do not
seem to be concerned about products surviving past their warranty
period, I highly doubt this report is factual."
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Whittaker, Dewey
(EHCOE)
Sent: 25 January 2010 16:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] [tinwhiskers] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review
conference report
I am not aware that any of the so-called halogen-free laminate materials
will meet the Class 3 or 3/A requirements of IPC-6012 when
pre-conditioned per IPC-TM-650, Method 2.6.7 (Thermal Stress Testing per
3.6.1.3 of the Rev C going to ballot), let alone some of the other
idiosyncrasies that are currently being addressed.
Dewey
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Landman
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 3:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] [tinwhiskers] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review
conference report
According to this EU article, manufacturers have successfully
transitioned from halogenated and pthalate containing pc boards without
any difficulty.
Is this true?
Are the new boards flame retardant?
Do they survive multiple passes at lead-free soldering temperatures?
What about delamination?
What about pad cratering?
Other issues?
Knowing the EU and how the major manufacturers suck up as they do not
seem to be concerned about products surviving past their warranty
period, I highly doubt this report is factual.
I would appreciate comments from those who have more than one year of
experience with these new board materials.
Do they pass the UL flame and smoke tests?
What other tests are they certified to pass?
Have the tests been altered so these new board materials can pass?
What are the life cycle testing -55C to +125C - results?
-40C to +85C life cycle testing results?
Shock?
Vibration?
How many layers? (at least 24?)
Will the Airbus avionics be using these new board materials and if so
when?
Bob Landman
H&L Instruments, LLC
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 22, 2010, at 12:28 PM, "John Burke" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> FYI see link for report in email below
>
> John Burke
> (408) 515 4992
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SMART Group smart-e-link [mailto:SMART-E-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nigel Burtt
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 1:43 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review conference report
>
> "Greening Consumer Electronics - from Hazardous Material to
> Sustainable Solutions Conference" in the European Parliament held on
> 18 November
> 2009
>
> Leading companies within the electronics sector sent strong message to
> EU regulators at ChemSec Conference: Moving away from Brominated Flame
> Retardants and PVC is possible, feasible and is already happening! The
> question is not whether electrical and electronic equipment industry
> can phase out these chemicals, but when, says Jill Evans, Member of
> the European Parliament. (Rapporteur leading the drafting of recast
> amendments to
> RoHS)
>
>
> Full report including presentations and video
>
> http://www.chemsec.org/rohs/conference
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Nigel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
