SV: [sdiy] Info on using vactrols with exemption in EU from metasonix

[John Alex Hvidlykke]

No, actually it's the reverse situation:

The vactrols do fall under the general ROHS directive, but they have until
now been saved by a time-limited exception. But that is coming to an end,
and the (delayed) ban will then take effect.

John



> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: synth-diy-bounces at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> [mailto:synth-diy-bounces at dropmix.xs4all.nl]På vegne af cheater cheater
> Sendt: 16. september 2009 22:09
> Til: synth-diy
> Emne: Re: [sdiy] Info on using vactrols with exemption in EU from
> metasonix
>
>
> Yep, but what i really mean is: how is the vactrol-police related to
> the rohs police?
>
> isn't rohs a separate directive from the 'vactrol ban'?
>
> not clear on that one..
>
> Thanks
> D.
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Ben Stuyts <ben at stuyts.nl> wrote:
> > Hi D.,
> >
> > On 16 sep 2009, at 09:46, cheater cheater wrote:
> >
> >> I think it's very relevant to ask you how all this relates to the
> >> vactrol police.
> >
> > It's just background info. I thought I'd inject some info from the
> > rulebooks, but obviously anyone can decide for themselves what
> to do with
> > it.
> >
> > The relevance for now: until december 2009, no problems with
> Vactrols for
> > pro audio applications. After that: lets hope for an extension.
> >
> > Oh, btw, this is a good site to keep an eye on these extensions:
> > http://www.rohs.gov.uk/
> >
> > The exemption for the Vactrols is described here:
> >
> http://www.rohs.gov.uk/Docs/Exemptions%20without%20link%20backs/Ro
> HS%20Exemptions%20-%20Cadmium%20(2).pdf
> >
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> D.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Ben Stuyts <ben at stuyts.nl> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dan,
> >>>
> >>> With all respect to Eric, but this is just plain silly. I've
> been through
> >>> this route for non-musical instruments related equipment, so I will
> >>> comment
> >>> below from this experience:
> >>>
> >>> On 15 sep 2009, at 17:16, Dan Snazelle wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You are being misinformed by a lot of fools.
> >>>
> >>> Hum...
> >>>
> >>>> If you need the exemption, you take it yourself,
> >>>
> >>> This is true. No need to apply for it somewhere. A lot of the
> ROHS, WEEE
> >>> and
> >>> even the whole CE declaration can be based on your own declaration of
> >>> conformity. Just be ready to back it up. There's a lot of due
> diligence
> >>> involved.
> >>>
> >>>> and include a
> >>>> preprinted ROHS certificate in every package sent to Europe.
> Just claim
> >>>> that your products are "meant to expand the capacity of
> and/or upgrade"
> >>>> older equipment, since your products are for use as additions to a
> >>>> "professional recording studio", which qualifies them as "upgrades".
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the exemption I take :
> >>>>
> >>>> "METASONIX takes the exemption provided in Section 7 of the
> Annex of the
> >>>> European Union’s Restriction on the Use of Hazardous Substances in
> >>>> Electrical and Electronic Equipment (“RoHS”) Directive, 2002/95/EC:
> >>>>
> >>>> --replacement components that expand the capacity of and/or
> upgrade of
> >>>> EEE placed on the market before 1 July 2006.
> >>>>
> >>>> --Lead in glass of cathode ray tubes, electronic components and
> >>>> fluorescent tubes."
> >>>
> >>> The directive states:
> >>>
> >>> "The RoHS Regulations do not apply: ... To spare parts for
> the repair of
> >>> EEE
> >>> (Electrical and Electronic Equipment) that was placed on the market
> >>> before 1
> >>> July 2006. It should be noted that, following discussions in
> the TAC, the
> >>> European Commission and Member States have agreed that this exemption
> >>> extends to parts that expand the capacity of and/or upgrade
> EEE placed on
> >>> the market before that date provided the EEE concerned is not
> put on the
> >>> market as a new product."
> >>>
> >>> This is what I mentioned in one of my previous emails. You
> can use it for
> >>> spare parts, etc. Ok, so Eric has a very wide interpretation
> of all this.
> >>> If
> >>> we follow his logic, this means that I could manufacture a bunch a
> >>> loudspeakers full of lead, cadmium and all the other good
> stuff, as this
> >>> qualifies as an upgrade to the other equipment in a living
> room. (As long
> >>> as
> >>> all the other equipment is from before 2006.)
> >>>
> >>>> Given the small quantities you are making, you DO NOT have to worry
> >>>> about ROHS. It was intended to keep consumer products containing lead
> >>>> and cadmium out of the waste stream, and IS NOT intended to control
> >>>> sales or shipments of specialized, low-production music
> equipment. The
> >>>> ROHS law is full of long lists of exemptions for things like military
> >>>> electronics, commercial communications equipment, and many other
> >>>> specialist products. There are several more you could probably take,
> >>>> besides the ones I use.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm still using lead solder, as well as plenty of Vactrols, and have
> >>>> never had the slightest problem shipping to Europe--and btw, I think
> >>>> Analogue Systems is also taking the same exemption, and
> still uses lead
> >>>> solder. Lead-free solder has a lot of disadvantages.
> >>>>
> >>>> Feel free to post this to DIY or elsewhere. And stop worrying.
> >>>
> >>> The directives are easily googled. No need to ask biased manufacturers
> >>> who
> >>> need to keep their sales of non-ROHS compliant equipment
> going. (Again,
> >>> with
> >>> all respect for the Metasonix equipment, just not agreeing
> with the ROHS
> >>> pov.)
> >>>
> >>> Ben
> >
> > Ben
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.100/2374 - Release
> Date: 09/15/09 20:00:00
>