Hello Techies everywhere,
You might be interested to know that our Japanese cousins are presently lobbying the EU and others, to permit the use of a small amount of lead in soldering alloys. They are doing this because of certain concerns over product reliability.
Regards
Graham Naisbitt - KBO
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +44 (0)12 5252 1500
Web: www.gen3systems.com
On 11 Aug 2011, at 14:47, Stadem, Richard D. wrote:
> A post for the Technet Hall of Fame! Great job, Rex. One big whompin' ATTABOY. Set 'em straight.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rex Waygood
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:08 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Lead Free solder has performed well...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ron Lasky
> Sent: 10 August 2011 16:03
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Lead Free solder has performed well...
>
> Folks,
>
> I thought I posted this:
>
> Rex: You did
>
> Since there has been much discussion about what it has been assumed that
> I said about lead-free solder, it would seem to be reasonable to share
> my actual thoughts on the status of lead-free. So here are some of
> them.
> Lead-free is here. It is not going away.
>
> Rex: Unfortunately true. That doesn't make the original decision
> correct.
>
> So let's understand how it affects us. I don't have a problem with
> discussing lead-free's short comings, but spending a great deal of time
> acting like it will be repealed if we complain enough is a waste of
> time.
>
> Rex: Agreed but you did post twice.
>
> Let's discuss reliability, process challenges, concerns over silver and
> tin costs and supply, electrical use, etc. But let the discussions be
> based on data and analysis, not emotions.
>
> I agree that lead-free solder was and is not now needed to protect the
> environment or the citizens of the European Union. It has never been
> demonstrated that lead containing solders are a threat in land-fills and
> it has been demonstrated that leaded solders can be safely recycled. In
> addition, establishing lead-free assembly cost upwards of $50B and
> continues to present challenges and require investment.
>
> Rex: I must of missed something here I thought that was the reason we
> were all forced to introduce this process. My recollection was that was
> exactly the justification used.
>
> Although lead-free was not needed to protect consumers or the
> environment in the EU, since a large proportion of re-cycling is
> performed "illegally" in 3rd world countries, it is likely safer for the
> untrained and unregulated re-cylers of the 3rd world to recycle
> lead-free solders than leaded solders.
>
> Rex: Unfortunately lead free doesn't tackle this problem for many years
> as the millions of tons of legacy WEEE will still be ending up where it
> can do its environmental and human damage. Also the illegal WEEE route
> doesn't just put lead into the environment and poison humans there are
> many other by-products of this process. Where is the evidence that tin
> is good for the environment? What could have been done with all that
> human effort if the illegal WEEE trade had been tackled? It still isn't
> being tackled and we are still poisoning people with things as well as
> lead. A UK recycling facility runs at half capacity because it is too
> easy to ship containers of WEEE as 2nd user goods (it isn't) to 3rd
> world countries and the chances of getting caught are too low.
>
> Reliability of lead-free assembled commercial type products has been
> demonstrated in the lab and in the field.
>
> Rex: So what. Was this legislation necessary? Tin lead had 50 years plus
> of reliability data.
>
> I am referring to 0 to 100C type thermal cycling and drop shock testing,
> with SAC alloys. The experimental data of Henshall and Coyle presented
> last year at SMTAI support this. Their work represents millions of
> dollars of testing by teams of major companies. Although RoHS is only 5
> years old, Motorola has about 10 years of field data. They claim equal
> or better reliability with lead-free. Add this to the trillions of
> dollars of products manufactured since RoHS was enacted, with no major
> reliability problems and it would be hard to argue that commercial
> product reliability has not been demonstrated.
>
> Rex: This is still retrospective justification for a poor decision. The
> point is we didn't need to do the change.
>
> But, I agree, harsh environment, mission critical, long-life reliability
> of lead-free solder has not been demonstrated.
>
> Rex: Any reduction of the life of products is likely to increase the
> flow of WEEE into the illegal processing trade and will not make the
> situation better. At one point the average life of a phone in the UK was
> about a year!
>
> It would be hard to over state the benefit of lead-free solder's poorer
> spreading enabling high performance mobile products.
>
> Rex: I don't believe it was necessary to burden the whole of the world's
> electronics manufacturing system to solve the problem of producing
> phones. If the CEMs making phones where unable to solve their process
> problems without invoking lead free then they were free to do so. This
> isn't actually something I believe anyway. Although our experience is
> small in comparison to phone manufacturers we have made thousands of
> boards using telephone technology parts using lead processes for the US
> telecoms market. It wasn't easy but the process problems were solved. We
> didn't say to the US customer you have to take lead free.
>
> There are now 5.6 billion mobile phone subscriptions in a world of 7
> billion people. No electronic product has made such a market
> penetration. Lead-free solder has aided this feat in enabling
> tremendous function in a small size.
>
> Rex: Please provide proof that there were no other solutions to a
> processing problem and that to achieve this we had to force the whole
> world to change the manufacturing process.
>
> Ron
>
> Rex: Your post to me is like that provided by a politician who makes a
> very bad decision and then tries to justify it retrospectively with a
> complete red herring.
>
>
> Regards
> Rex
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0 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 For
> additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
> 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
> For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
> 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
> For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
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
For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------
|
