RoHS

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:41:25 GMT, the renowned Robert Baer
<robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote:

Naturally, you *are* aware of the fact that solder will seperate from
gold; the result at best being an intermitttent contact...

Don't the *thin* layers we're talking about here simply dissolve in
the solder?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Robert Baer]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:41:25 GMT, the renowned Robert Baer
robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote:



Naturally, you *are* aware of the fact that solder will seperate from
gold; the result at best being an intermitttent contact...


Don't the *thin* layers we're talking about here simply dissolve in
the solder?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
If thin enough, that would be a reasonable presumption.

Perhaps a bit of calculation would give an idea as to how much gold
could be present to ceate a theoretical euctectic, and then "scale back"
the gold rhickness to one-half that or less for safety?

 

[Guy Macon]

Robert Baer wrote:

Naturally, you *are* aware of the fact that solder will seperate from
gold; the result at best being an intermitttent contact...

Back when we were doing it, there was a chart from one of the solder
manufacturers that gave the maximun thickness that would dissolve
during soldering. I remember the QA folks complaining about the
difficulty of testing for too-thick gold plate. This wasn't mil-spec
or high reliability, so in the end we just put a big "thickness not
to exceed" note on the P.O. and assumed n that nobody was going to
give us more gold than the absulute minimum they could get away with.

 

[Ben Bradley]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:11:40 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:

RoHS (Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances)

"While the RoHS initiative takes effect in the European Union
on July 1, 2006, it impacts the electronics industry worldwide."

Sure does.

...

The elimination of Pb in electronics goods is a shockingly marginal
example of reducing hazard too.

I've always wondered about that. Apparently the biggest problem
with lead in modern times was when it was in gasoline, and since the
US went to unleaded only gas, lead amounts in the air have dropped
bigtime.
I recall a letter in EE Times, perhaps mid 90's, probably related
to the then-mandated five-year changeover to lead-free solder (which
obviously didn't happen), the writer said a large contributor to lead
in our environment is the lead counterweights on car wheels. They come
off the wheels, lie on the road and are ground to bits by cars running
over them, and microscopic bits of lead are washed off into the
drainwater by rains, and eventually end up in drinking water. He
mentioned picking up the lead weights off the road as an environmental
measure, but it would also help if a law were passed that these
weights be made of something more benign, such as iron or cheap steel.
It wouldn't be a big deal, when a car comes in for new tires, the lead
weights (if by lucky chance they're still on the wheel) go into a
recycling bin, and the new no-lead weights are added for balancing the
new tires.

Graham

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

 

[Greg Neff]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 18:56:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:41:25 GMT, the renowned Robert Baer
robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote:


Naturally, you *are* aware of the fact that solder will seperate from
gold; the result at best being an intermitttent contact...

Don't the *thin* layers we're talking about here simply dissolve in
the solder?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Yes, that is the idea. If the gold is too thick (this happened to us
once) then the components will not reliably solder to the board.

================================

Greg Neff
VP Engineering
*Microsym* Computers Inc.
greg@guesswhichwordgoeshere.com

 

[Greg Neff]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 04:12:29 +0000, Guy Macon
<_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:

Robert Baer wrote:

Naturally, you *are* aware of the fact that solder will seperate from
gold; the result at best being an intermitttent contact...

Back when we were doing it, there was a chart from one of the solder
manufacturers that gave the maximun thickness that would dissolve
during soldering. I remember the QA folks complaining about the
difficulty of testing for too-thick gold plate. This wasn't mil-spec
or high reliability, so in the end we just put a big "thickness not
to exceed" note on the P.O. and assumed n that nobody was going to
give us more gold than the absulute minimum they could get away with.

I think that you can tell by the appearance. Yes, I know that this is
subjective, but it is useful for raising a flag at incoming
inspection. The thin coating has only a slightly gold appearance.
Sort of a silver/gold mix. If it looks like real gold, then it's too
thick.

================================

Greg Neff
VP Engineering
*Microsym* Computers Inc.
greg@guesswhichwordgoeshere.com

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Greg Neff" <greg@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:h9ke81hdk4d3e6m13d5elpub53b4p1l2nq@4ax.com...

On Sat, 14 May 2005 18:56:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:41:25 GMT, the renowned Robert Baer
robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote:


Naturally, you *are* aware of the fact that solder will seperate from
gold; the result at best being an intermitttent contact...

Don't the *thin* layers we're talking about here simply dissolve in
the solder?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Yes, that is the idea. If the gold is too thick (this happened to us
once) then the components will not reliably solder to the board.

How can you be sure the gold is not too thick?

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Greg Neff]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:59:25 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"Greg Neff" <greg@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:h9ke81hdk4d3e6m13d5elpub53b4p1l2nq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 May 2005 18:56:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:41:25 GMT, the renowned Robert Baer
robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote:


Naturally, you *are* aware of the fact that solder will seperate from
gold; the result at best being an intermitttent contact...

Don't the *thin* layers we're talking about here simply dissolve in
the solder?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Yes, that is the idea. If the gold is too thick (this happened to us
once) then the components will not reliably solder to the board.

How can you be sure the gold is not too thick?

I'm not sure how the gold application is specified because that's not
my department. There are probably methods to determine the actual
applied thickness, but we are not equipped to do so. As I said in
another post, if it looks like real gold then it's probably too thick.

In any case, as far as I am concerned a PCB is like any other
component that is purchased. In many respects you have to trust that
the component meets the specifications. If a non-compliance is found
with a component then the quality management process kicks in. If a
manufacturer cannot provide a satisfactory failure analysis and a
suitable recovery plan to ensure that the problem will not happen
again, then it's time to find a different manufacturer.

================================

Greg Neff
VP Engineering
*Microsym* Computers Inc.
greg@guesswhichwordgoeshere.com

 

[Paul Burke]

Winfield Hill wrote:

RoHS (Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances)

"While the RoHS initiative takes effect in the European Union
on July 1, 2006, it impacts the electronics industry worldwide."

Does it half. I'm getting bunches of notifications from Farnell telling
me that yet another product has been withdrawn because of RoHS
noncompliance. The latest to go is the TC55. I haven't looked at their
suggested replacement yet, but you can bet that it's not pin compatible,
is packaged differently, or is electrically different. Over the European
electronics industry as a whole, millions of pounds will be spent on
completely unneccessary redesigns, the overall result of which will be
at best a marginal improvement in public safety. Meanwhile, Europe's
competitors will be able to go ahead merrily, only modifying products
intended for Europe. Daft or what?

Paul Burke

 

[Tony Williams]

In article <3er528F4hsocU1@individual.net>,
Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote:

Does it half. I'm getting bunches of notifications from Farnell
telling me that yet another product has been withdrawn because
of RoHS noncompliance. The latest to go is the TC55. I haven't
looked at their suggested replacement yet, but you can bet that
it's not pin compatible, is packaged differently, or is
electrically different. Over the European electronics industry
as a whole, millions of pounds will be spent on completely
unneccessary redesigns, the overall result of which will be at
best a marginal improvement in public safety. Meanwhile, Europe's
competitors will be able to go ahead merrily, only modifying
products intended for Europe. Daft or what?

That is totally the wrong attitude for a good European.
You are supposed to be pleased that those bureaucrats in
Brussels are creating yet another mountain of paper, and
go positively orgasmic at the thought of contributing to
all those (guaranteed) index-linked pensions.

--
Tony Williams.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Paul Burke wrote...

The latest to go is the TC55. ...

It sounds like a real pain! But won't Microchip make a lead-free
version - maybe they do already? I know they consider the TC55
to be an important offering. They suggest asking.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:38:04 +0100, the renowned Paul Burke
<paul@scazon.com> wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:
RoHS (Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances)

"While the RoHS initiative takes effect in the European Union
on July 1, 2006, it impacts the electronics industry worldwide."


Does it half. I'm getting bunches of notifications from Farnell telling
me that yet another product has been withdrawn because of RoHS
noncompliance. The latest to go is the TC55. I haven't looked at their
suggested replacement yet, but you can bet that it's not pin compatible,
is packaged differently, or is electrically different.

About 30-45% more quiescent current, and input voltage 6.5V abs max
vs. 12V abs max. The latter will be a killer in some cases, obviously.

On the plus side, it's stable with a ceramic output cap, has a much
tighter tolerance, better typical drift, and better dropout at higher
currents.

Over the European
electronics industry as a whole, millions of pounds will be spent on
completely unneccessary redesigns, the overall result of which will be
at best a marginal improvement in public safety. Meanwhile, Europe's
competitors will be able to go ahead merrily, only modifying products
intended for Europe. Daft or what?

Paul Burke

I don't think that's going to happen. The rest of the world will go
along (kicking and screaming in some cases). Same as with ISO9000-- it
didn't just go away, multinationals (such as the automakers) began to
require it. Even if the finished products of small-scale manufacturers
are not compliant, the cost of compliance at the component level will
be borne by the entire market, not just the EU.

The whole thing reminds me a lot of the shift to SMT technology
<mumble> years ago, except that the upside is not so evident.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Barry Lennox]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:11:40 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:

RoHS (Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances)

"While the RoHS initiative takes effect in the European Union
on July 1, 2006, it impacts the electronics industry worldwide."

Sure does.

Some of our suppliers have already indicated price increases to cope with
the new processing required. Lead free solder is more expensive for one.

I'd love to know if anyone has done any research as to the effect on
reliability of semiconductors as a result of being processed at
significantly increased temps. Esp as the semi vendors have always said
that process temps should be minimised.

Frankly sounds like a bag of shit.

Trouble is - we've got used to being treated like shit. Who cares anymore
?

The elimination of Pb in electronics goods is a shockingly marginal
example of reducing hazard too.

This whole Lead free is so much BS driven by the euro-green-nutters.
There's precious little evidence its a problem. It's just the stupid
EU has this "precautionary principle" enshrined that more or less
states that if you think something may be a problem, you should act,
even although there is no evidence to support it.

IF lead solvency is such a big problem, what about lead in car wheel
weights, every time it rains, it washes over the weights then straight
into the waste water system. And many many roofs in Europe, the rain
washes over the lead sheathing then into the waste water.

And some cities in the UK still use lead water distribution pipes, in
particular in Edinburgh. The local health body tests both the water
and a sample population for high lead content. No problem has ever
been found.

However, we must keep in mind that the EU is the same band of rocket
scientists that dictate the angle of bend that defines a banana, and
that food coloring shall not be added to the feed of flamingos!
(Seriously!)

It's all about protection and growth of the bureaucracy, more jobs for
petty dictators, and satisfying the egos of control freaks. It's a
pity they cannot or will not apply their power to the many atrocities
and war crimes that occur in their neck of the woods.


Barry Lennox