Lead free solder - exposed in a UK national newspaper

[Arfa Daily]

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fu7ieq$b63$1@registered.motzarella.org...

more printed followup
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/17/1
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 17 2008
Tin woes solder on

Congratulations on the very interesting article on tin whiskers (Within a
whisker of failure, April 3). You may be interested to hear of another
phenomenon associated with lead-free solders in electronics, known as tin
pest. Research was carried out into the allotropy of tin 80 years ago. Tin
pest was found to occur by a process of nucleation and growth of "grey"
tin
(a form found below 13C), and was very slow - often requiring years to
complete. Since the transition from "white" to "grey" tin involved a 27%
increase in volume, its formation was restricted to the surface. Recently,
tin pest has been reported in bulk samples of lead-free solder alloys
following a few years' exposure at -18C, the usual freezer temperature.

To date it has not been observed on actual joints. But lead-free
interconnections have been in service for a relatively short time.
Although
we do not know whether it is necessary to shut the stable door, we should
make more effort to understand and control tin pest formation. Only time
will tell whether it represents a real problem in electronics.
Professor Bill Plumbridge
Faculty of Technology
The Open University



--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

'Plumb' -ridge. What an appropriate name for someone versed in lead matters
! Seriously though, I'm really glad that the scientific establishment is
finally making some anti lead-free noise, and backing up with genuine
science, what we lowly service engineers have been trying to tell the world,
since the first day that this hateful material was foisted on us by self
serving bureaucrats with a politically 'green' agenda ...

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2h2l0454htk5e5t1u94li87d7q310u0fn4@4ax.com...

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
...

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in, running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a bastard,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case. When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-bollocks legislation finally ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative, yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high power HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad. With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2h2l0454htk5e5t1u94li87d7q310u0fn4@4ax.com...

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
...

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in, running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a bastard,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case. When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-bollocks legislation finally ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative, yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high power HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad. With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jqsn049m1ve2npm58ohnj1cgq7k9si972m@4ax.com...

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:18:25 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2h2l0454htk5e5t1u94li87d7q310u0fn4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor,
dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent
(890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere
sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps.
that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs
(eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so
they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it,
eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you
need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting
there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb
life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get
a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about
half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a
single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference
if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
...

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure
for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver
for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the
unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in,
running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a
bastard,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in
the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case.
When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-bollocks legislation finally
ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short
order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative,
yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling
lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple
the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design
principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high power
HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad.
With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa


Most of those will be converted to HID lighting or induction lighting
instead of cfl over the longevity characteristics.

?????????

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:lavn04hfdre2d5utiova7q8gi8rbgcmgto@4ax.com...

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:17:37 GMT, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com
wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:jpmuv3d1an98pgo1d1gvsm7euppe7s9bd5@4ax.com...
On 10 Apr 2008 22:48:41 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On 10 Apr 2008 08:18:32 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

I put it right there in front of you: They measure ELECTRIC POTENTIAL
otherwise known as "VOLTAGE", between a filling and a reference point.

TOATAL BULLSHIT, you fucking idiot!

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

If anything, I admit that discussing this topic in
a group related to electronics is highly inappropriate,
and I feel *very* embarrassed that I unwittingly led the
discussion in this direction. I hope to wind this
down soon.

I've posted enough links to Wikipedia that anyone who has
interest can just go read them, and learn much more than I
have to offer on my own. And don't knock my little story
without checking out the reader's comments to Dr. Huggins'
book on Amazon.com if you haven't already. If those things
don't do it for you, I don't think anything will ... and
that's perfectly ok with me! Enjoy your own reality however
you prefer it.

---
Read this:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

JF

Yes, that's more like it. At least it cites relevant research, which
*appears* to have been carried out by scientific people using proper
methodology.

Arfa


The fact is that the amalgam used by the dentists uses the Mercury to
bind the other metals together covalently.

As the dentist presses the silver amalgam into the filling cavity, the
mercury squeezes out and is recaptured by the dentist.. This means that
your fillings are like 95% Silver, and a few percent of other metals, and
less than one percent of metallic form Mercury.

NOT A HEALTH HAZARD.

My feeling too ...

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cg2t041vfc8jqokr3on7fnu71vl8hdh6hn@4ax.com...

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:44:11 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jqsn049m1ve2npm58ohnj1cgq7k9si972m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:18:25 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2h2l0454htk5e5t1u94li87d7q310u0fn4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor,
dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent
(890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen
lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere
sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps.
that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt
equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a
few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs
(eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so
they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need
it,
eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you
need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting
there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb
life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous
efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to
get
a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about
half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in
the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a
single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see
fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from
rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference
if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
...

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically
meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure
for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver
for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the
unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in,
running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a
bastard,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one
goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light
outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in
the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case.
When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-bollocks legislation finally
ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short
order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative,
yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we
were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling
lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple
the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design
principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters
go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet
off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high
power
HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad.
With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa


Most of those will be converted to HID lighting or induction lighting
instead of cfl over the longevity characteristics.

?????????

Arfa


Most street lighting is HPS currently with a normal ballast, there are
some MH lamps with normal ballasts. LED street lighting is being
experimented with. Caltrans in using induction lighting on signs and
may branch out into other uses. Since induction lighting is targeted
at hard to maintain locations in commercial and industrial settings
there are design differences from household CFL where cheap is the
dominant factor. Where we will see CFL is on smaller apartment
buildings with penny-pinching owners / managers.

Ah, OK. I see what you're saying now. I guess that LED lighting is going to
become the standard when they can get them high enough powered. This can't
be too far away, as I see that car manufacturers are starting to experiment
with LED headlights. Already, Audi seem to have LED front running lights,
set into the headlight units, and some of the front lamps used on bicycles
now output enough light to see the road ahead. A local night club had
coloured floodlights on the front of the building, which were LED based, and
I was amazed at just how good a job they did.

Elektor magazine carried out an interesting project last month. They took a
DLP video projector with a standard expensive HID lamp and colour wheel, and
canibalised it to fit an array of red, green and blue Luxeon LEDs in its
place. They then programmed up a cheap microcontroller to emulate the
rotation of the colour wheel, by switching the colours of the LEDs with 3
FETs. They also fed a colour sync signal from the micro to the original
optical sync pickup, so that the LED switching remained synced to the DLP
chip drive. Colour balance was achieved by tweaking the 'on' times of the
LED colours, in software.

The conclusion was that although not as bright as the original HID lamp, the
projector did produce a perfectly useable picture, which proved what they
set out to, which was that it was perfectly possible to use LEDs in place of
a lamp, and that it would be just as good, once they had got the luminous
output up just a bit more.

Arfa

 

[N_Cook]

and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

I believe there are several inaccuracies in Kurt Jacobsen's article (Within
a whisker of failure, April 3). He cites the Swatch watch company as
recalling a "huge batch" of watches that amounted to a financial loss, when
in fact Swatch was denied its request for a RoHS exemption, as another
supplier makes lead-free quartz movements it could use with no whisker
issues. Also, Swatch makes no mention of a recall in its EU request. The
nuclear power plant failure example and others are also misleading, as these
were failures due to pure-tin formulations that predate RoHS. The new
formulations reduce these issues. Here's a good article that refutes the
"gloom and doom" predictions: tinyurl.com/4wxmkz.
Marcus England, by email


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

 

[Arfa Daily]

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fuqt78$7io$1@registered.motzarella.org...

and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

I believe there are several inaccuracies in Kurt Jacobsen's article
(Within
a whisker of failure, April 3). He cites the Swatch watch company as
recalling a "huge batch" of watches that amounted to a financial loss,
when
in fact Swatch was denied its request for a RoHS exemption, as another
supplier makes lead-free quartz movements it could use with no whisker
issues. Also, Swatch makes no mention of a recall in its EU request. The
nuclear power plant failure example and others are also misleading, as
these
were failures due to pure-tin formulations that predate RoHS. The new
formulations reduce these issues. Here's a good article that refutes the
"gloom and doom" predictions: tinyurl.com/4wxmkz.
Marcus England, by email


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

Hmmm. Have you ever come across any solder that's pure tin ? It would take a
blowtorch to melt it. Also, there is plenty of research that shows that the
lead in tin-lead solder alloy, mitigates the growth of tin whiskers, whereas
copper doesn't. And anyway, none of the whisker issues alter the fact that
the bloody stuff just doesn't make reliable joints on many component forms,
as anyone involved at the sharp end, would attest to ...

The article that Mr England cites, does not instil a great deal more
confidence in me. Whilst it may be true that *some* cellular phones have
been manufactured in lead-free since 2001, this 'fact' tells us nothing
about the long-term reliability of them, as most are owned primarily as a
fashion statement - even amongst 'mature' businessmen - and only
secondarily as a communications device. This, as well as the fact that the
battery only lasts a short while, dictates that it is replaced on a yearly
basis, which is encouraged by the cellular operators, when they give the
latest all singing and dancing models away, as an incentive to stick with
their network.

Further, this is just one single low power device, As all of us involved in
electronic service work know, there are many other consumer devices such as
TV sets, DVD players, HiFi, microwave ovens etc which, unlike cellphones,
contain large power components and connectors, which do not enjoy good long
term - or often even short term - reliability, when jointed using lead-free
solders. This in no way supports the statement in the article that :-

"This field data indicates the reliability of lead-free assemblies is equal
to, or better than, tin-lead soldered assemblies".

You simply can't make statements like that based on a single product group,
and claim them to have blanket validity.

The further statement ....

"While laboratory studies suggest lead-free solder does not perform as well
in high-stress applications, such as might occur in a ‘drop test', many
applications with these types of concerns (i.e. military) are currently
exempted from RoHS. Meanwhile, alloy developmental work to address lead-free
shortcomings is already underway."

..... contains three areas of concern in that (1) lead-free solder does not
perform *as well* ... (2) some applications e.g. military have concerns
about this, and (3) that it is accepted that the technology has shortcomings
that need to be addressed.

Further, I also have a problem with the first paragraph in the article :-

"Most people incorrectly think the primary intent of RoHS is to protect the
environment. In truth, the fundamental purpose of RoHS is to make recycling
EEE easier and safer."

Protection of the environment was the ticket on which RoHS in general - and
this substitute lead-free technology in particular - was originally sold to
an unsuspecting world. It seems to me that those who make up this
eco-legislation (as they go along, I suspect) are now discovering the error
of their original concept as to why the mature and proven lead solder
technology needed replacing, and are now seeking to bury that error in a
different concept altogether. I can't remember ever before seeing any
reference anywhere to RoHS being primarily to improve the ease and safety of
WEEE recycling, rather than as an environmental issue.

So, far from this article "refuting the gloom and doom", I think it serves
only to further highlight the well known shortcomings of lead-free solder
technology, and unfortunately for Mr England's case, I don't believe that
his letter holds a candle to the two from the other side of the coin, which
preceded it.

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fuqt78$7io$1@registered.motzarella.org...

and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

I believe there are several inaccuracies in Kurt Jacobsen's article
(Within
a whisker of failure, April 3). He cites the Swatch watch company as
recalling a "huge batch" of watches that amounted to a financial loss,
when
in fact Swatch was denied its request for a RoHS exemption, as another
supplier makes lead-free quartz movements it could use with no whisker
issues. Also, Swatch makes no mention of a recall in its EU request. The
nuclear power plant failure example and others are also misleading, as
these
were failures due to pure-tin formulations that predate RoHS. The new
formulations reduce these issues. Here's a good article that refutes the
"gloom and doom" predictions: tinyurl.com/4wxmkz.
Marcus England, by email


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

Hmmm. Have you ever come across any solder that's pure tin ? It would take a
blowtorch to melt it. Also, there is plenty of research that shows that the
lead in tin-lead solder alloy, mitigates the growth of tin whiskers, whereas
copper doesn't. And anyway, none of the whisker issues alter the fact that
the bloody stuff just doesn't make reliable joints on many component forms,
as anyone involved at the sharp end, would attest to ...

The article that Mr England cites, does not instil a great deal more
confidence in me. Whilst it may be true that *some* cellular phones have
been manufactured in lead-free since 2001, this 'fact' tells us nothing
about the long-term reliability of them, as most are owned primarily as a
fashion statement - even amongst 'mature' businessmen - and only
secondarily as a communications device. This, as well as the fact that the
battery only lasts a short while, dictates that it is replaced on a yearly
basis, which is encouraged by the cellular operators, when they give the
latest all singing and dancing models away, as an incentive to stick with
their network.

Further, this is just one single low power device, As all of us involved in
electronic service work know, there are many other consumer devices such as
TV sets, DVD players, HiFi, microwave ovens etc which, unlike cellphones,
contain large power components and connectors, which do not enjoy good long
term - or often even short term - reliability, when jointed using lead-free
solders. This in no way supports the statement in the article that :-

"This field data indicates the reliability of lead-free assemblies is equal
to, or better than, tin-lead soldered assemblies".

You simply can't make statements like that based on a single product group,
and claim them to have blanket validity.

The further statement ....

"While laboratory studies suggest lead-free solder does not perform as well
in high-stress applications, such as might occur in a ‘drop test', many
applications with these types of concerns (i.e. military) are currently
exempted from RoHS. Meanwhile, alloy developmental work to address lead-free
shortcomings is already underway."

..... contains three areas of concern in that (1) lead-free solder does not
perform *as well* ... (2) some applications e.g. military have concerns
about this, and (3) that it is accepted that the technology has shortcomings
that need to be addressed.

Further, I also have a problem with the first paragraph in the article :-

"Most people incorrectly think the primary intent of RoHS is to protect the
environment. In truth, the fundamental purpose of RoHS is to make recycling
EEE easier and safer."

Protection of the environment was the ticket on which RoHS in general - and
this substitute lead-free technology in particular - was originally sold to
an unsuspecting world. It seems to me that those who make up this
eco-legislation (as they go along, I suspect) are now discovering the error
of their original concept as to why the mature and proven lead solder
technology needed replacing, and are now seeking to bury that error in a
different concept altogether. I can't remember ever before seeing any
reference anywhere to RoHS being primarily to improve the ease and safety of
WEEE recycling, rather than as an environmental issue.

So, far from this article "refuting the gloom and doom", I think it serves
only to further highlight the well known shortcomings of lead-free solder
technology, and unfortunately for Mr England's case, I don't believe that
his letter holds a candle to the two from the other side of the coin, which
preceded it.

Arfa

 

[N_Cook]

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:J4aQj.15796$244.10875@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fuqt78$7io$1@registered.motzarella.org...
and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

Protection of the environment was the ticket on which RoHS in general -
and
this substitute lead-free technology in particular - was originally sold
to
an unsuspecting world. It seems to me that those who make up this
eco-legislation (as they go along, I suspect) are now discovering the
error
of their original concept as to why the mature and proven lead solder
technology needed replacing, and are now seeking to bury that error in a
different concept altogether. I can't remember ever before seeing any
reference anywhere to RoHS being primarily to improve the ease and safety
of
WEEE recycling, rather than as an environmental issue.

So, far from this article "refuting the gloom and doom", I think it serves
only to further highlight the well known shortcomings of lead-free solder
technology, and unfortunately for Mr England's case, I don't believe that
his letter holds a candle to the two from the other side of the coin,
which
preceded it.

Arfa

What exactly can be recycled from say a PC?
As far as I can see the steel casing and perhaps some copper if it is not
too widely distributed , fragmented, needing human separation and plastic
separation environmental problems.
RoHS for recycling implies component level recycling - recycling 3 to 10
year old pc ICs - pull the other one.
Failing that, recycling processed sand and hard plastic after desoldering,
very unlikely. Leaves just the solder itself, which is just as recyclable
with or without lead presumably .

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

 

[Arfa Daily]

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:furuqe$k84$1@registered.motzarella.org...

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:J4aQj.15796$244.10875@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fuqt78$7io$1@registered.motzarella.org...
and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

Protection of the environment was the ticket on which RoHS in general -
and
this substitute lead-free technology in particular - was originally sold
to
an unsuspecting world. It seems to me that those who make up this
eco-legislation (as they go along, I suspect) are now discovering the
error
of their original concept as to why the mature and proven lead solder
technology needed replacing, and are now seeking to bury that error in a
different concept altogether. I can't remember ever before seeing any
reference anywhere to RoHS being primarily to improve the ease and safety
of
WEEE recycling, rather than as an environmental issue.

So, far from this article "refuting the gloom and doom", I think it
serves
only to further highlight the well known shortcomings of lead-free solder
technology, and unfortunately for Mr England's case, I don't believe that
his letter holds a candle to the two from the other side of the coin,
which
preceded it.

Arfa



What exactly can be recycled from say a PC?
As far as I can see the steel casing and perhaps some copper if it is not
too widely distributed , fragmented, needing human separation and plastic
separation environmental problems.
RoHS for recycling implies component level recycling - recycling 3 to 10
year old pc ICs - pull the other one.
Failing that, recycling processed sand and hard plastic after desoldering,
very unlikely. Leaves just the solder itself, which is just as recyclable
with or without lead presumably .

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/



That would appear to me to be the nub of the matter, so it sounds as though

you agree with me that this 'ease of recycling' thing is a subtle shift of
tack to better handle the changing wind direction ...

I know that they do recover gold from gold-plated connectors and IC pins,
but other than that, I agree that there's not a lot that can be recycled
from a purely practical point of view in terms of cost-effectiveness, both
from purely monetary and energy budget considerations.

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4811DDEC.A43EBEF8@hotmail.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

I know that they do recover gold from gold-plated connectors

A couple of microns ?

and IC pins

Since when have "IC pins" had gold on them ?

Since they put about a million of them on the bottom of a big chunk of
ceramic, called it a processor chip, and then tried to persuade all those
pins to make a good electrical connection via a ZIF socket ...

I saw a TV programme about a facility in the UK that recycles computers, and
removes the gold from various bits and pieces at a 'secret' location, and I
was astounded by the amounts of gold that were recovered, that not only made
this worth it from a recycling point of view, but also extremely financially
lucrative for the company doing it.

Take a look at this link for more facts than I could give you

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs060-01/fs060-01.pdf

Arfa

 

With SD card slot, can insert a SD card to expand memory
Built-in microphone
Support E-book function
Support multi-countries language
Support A-B repeat and contrast repeat
Support voice recording
Multi EQ mode
Picture browsing function
Built-in calendar
Support firmware upgrade
Support FM scan radio
Welcome to http://www.seriouswholesale.com.

 

[Meat Plow]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:19:42 -0700, Smitty Two wrote:

In article <47fa08f9$0$1103$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Jimmie D" <GFENDER@carolina.rr.com> wrote:

Have you ever had to repair a cable and you know the wire is probably broken
at one of the plugs but you cant tell which end?

If you have a multimeter that measures capacitance you can really shorten
your work. Measure capacitance of the bad wire to adjacent wires. If its
near zero compared to the reading from the other end you're on the bad end.
I was repairing some patch cables this weekend at work and discovered none
of my co-workers knew this trick.

I discovered this trick back in the 70s while I was in the USAF. I had just
built a linear scale capacitance meter and was playing with it measuring
everything in site when I noticed a test cable had 0 capacitance center pin
to shield on one end and the light bulb in my head went ON and I have been
testing cables this way ever since then.

Anyway, I figured since my co-workers didnt know about this technique maybe
a lot of other people didnt either so I am posting it around.

Jimmie Fender

Maybe some of the real techs in here knew that, but I didn't. Thanks!
What kind of capacitance range are we talking about? I've got a
non-auto-ranging capacitance meter with quite a few ranges...

I've used this method especially with CAT5 cable meters that can
actually tell you how for down the line the break is.

 

[volcko@juno.com]

On Apr 7, 4:16 pm, JeffM <jef...@email.com> wrote:

volcko@ juno.com wrote:
[...]a glass tube about 3/4" long and 1/8" diameter.
Inside this tube are 2 blades that look like [they] might contact each other
where they overlap slightly.

Hook up an ohmmeter and wave a magnet near it.http://www.google.com/images?q=reed-switch

Thats it! a reed switch........thanks

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 04:17:32 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:608jv3h7p6vac1nalotcip5npbhtqcfo15@4ax.com...

While you're fabricating another worthless response, you might
consider that the same mechanism that inspires metals to emit x-rays
is what causes phosphors to emit light when pounded on by electrons.
When the electrons in the inner orbits are knocked out (ionized) by
the bombarding the electrons, the outer electrons fall into these
inner orbits to replace them. The distance traveled between the outer
and inner orbits is the wavelength of the radiation produced.

Uh huh. Yeah.
Please review your quantum physics.

I'm not much of a fizzixist. Where did I go wrong? Digging...

According to my understanding of the Neils Bohr model of the atom, the
emitted wavelength is:
Wavelength =
1240 Electron-Volt-NanoMeters / (Energy difference between orbits)
<http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/applets/Bohr/content_files/section2.html>

Oops. I'm wrong. The wavelength is not the distance travelled. It's
proportional to the difference in orbital energy levels, not the
distance travelled.

The difference between the binding energies of the inner and outer
shell electrons is the energy of the radiation produced.

That's much closer to correct.

Unless there are some losses involved that I don't know about, the
energy of the emitted radiation is exactly the difference between
orbital energies.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Nico Coesel wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


John Fields wrote:

Better yet, make it the subject and crosspost it to a few groups.


Why make more messages? It is better if we all complain to Google.
Even better, forward the offending messages to Google so they can ban
the users.

Would you like a bridge with that? Even if Google does close an
account, the offender can sign right back up with the same name.


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

 

[whit3rd]

On Apr 6, 1:06 pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article <ni1iv3lq3c3jm5jopj5e3r2jpp9nuof...@4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:40:01 -0400, Rich Webb
bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
So, is it malfeasance or nonfeasance?

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

The reason is well known; the Google 'captcha'
is the defense against botnets opening google accounts,
and that has been (imperfectly) cracked. In recent
weeks, the crack has resulted in a flood of bogus accounts,
which (while individually closeable) aren't well controlled by
the techniques that worked fine last month.

Google is undoubtedly detecting and closing the malicious
accounts, and will may have already updated the captcha,
but in the interim, there's a problem. If the captcha problem is
fixed
at Google, there will STILL be bogus accounts from the interregnum,
so the floodgates will only get closed by individual action on the
long tail of the problematic accounts.

 

[Steve]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 08:52:26 +0100, "N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote:

Steve <s@s.c> wrote in message
news:7dpfv31h7j60fodeuhl71k2e35ahrtnpv7@4ax.com...
I have an MTX Thunder 6500D which had blown power supply & output
stage fets. I've got everything replaced except for the two SM
resistors that connect to the gates on the power supply fets (R628 &
R629). From what I can tell, the unit uses a TL494C to control the
supply. It drives two SM fets/transistors labeled
D228
A5G
These feed into what looks like a balun (not sure, the signal is DC
coupled going into the coil & ac coupled coming out), which feeds the
blown resistors, which each feed a pair of fets P/N P55NF06. The
resistors are in series between the balun & power supply fets.
Unfortunately, the resistors cracked in the middle and are illegible,
and MTX doesn't give out info. I know MTX repairs in house for a flat
rate, but I've already put the money & time into it, I'd hate to pay
$95.00 or whatever it was just to replace two 8 cent resistors.
I've posted a picture of the resistors in a.b.s.e.

Also, there aren't any three digit part numbers on any of the other
resistors, and the only letters in the part numbers are for the low
values(10R0,3301 etc...)

All that I can read off the blown ones is 4 5. If there were two
nubmers in the middle, this would put it in the 40 meg ohm range. I'm
not an expert, but that seems too high to drive the gates on the fets.
I would expect a 40 something ohm value to be more realistic. Am I
wrong in this assumption? Therefore, what standard resistor values
are there in the 4x.5 ohm range?

If I'm off base on this, please give me some guidance. FWIW the other
class D amps I have use something in the range of 10ohms - 100ohms for
the gate resistors.

Thanks,
Steve Kamego


Wire a connection to each land of a cracked R , so you can connect to a DVM.
Sandwich a bit of kitchen foil between the two parts and squash together to
get the minimum reading, maybe. Could give some idea of value.

Just to follow up, I got an email from MTX & they are 47.5 ohms.

Thanks everyone!
Steve

 

[Meat Plow]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:11:06 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Meat Plow wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:19:42 -0700, Smitty Two wrote:

In article <47fa08f9$0$1103$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Jimmie D" <GFENDER@carolina.rr.com> wrote:

Have you ever had to repair a cable and you know the wire is probably broken
at one of the plugs but you cant tell which end?

If you have a multimeter that measures capacitance you can really shorten
your work. Measure capacitance of the bad wire to adjacent wires. If its
near zero compared to the reading from the other end you're on the bad end.
I was repairing some patch cables this weekend at work and discovered none
of my co-workers knew this trick.

I discovered this trick back in the 70s while I was in the USAF. I had just
built a linear scale capacitance meter and was playing with it measuring
everything in site when I noticed a test cable had 0 capacitance center pin
to shield on one end and the light bulb in my head went ON and I have been
testing cables this way ever since then.

Anyway, I figured since my co-workers didnt know about this technique maybe
a lot of other people didnt either so I am posting it around.

Jimmie Fender

Maybe some of the real techs in here knew that, but I didn't. Thanks!
What kind of capacitance range are we talking about? I've got a
non-auto-ranging capacitance meter with quite a few ranges...

I've used this method especially with CAT5 cable meters that can
actually tell you how for down the line the break is.


A TDR is even better.

Better for who?