Homebrew PCBs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/03/research.engineering
http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Russell Shaw" <rjshaw@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:09 AM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Whiskering thanks to european retards


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/03/research.engineering
> http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/

They aren't a problem if the correct heat profile is used when assembling 
the boards.

Leon
--
Leon Heller
Amateur radio call-sign G1HSM
Yaesu FT-817ND and FT-857D transceivers
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
leon355@...
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller

And the right materials. (not pure tin)

And i resent the "retards" comment. The law may be stupid, but the
ones a bit backward are those who didn't do their homework and courted
trouble.
Funny how thousands of companies have no problems.

ST

On 4/6/08, Leon <leon355@...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Russell Shaw" <rjshaw@...>
>  To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
>  Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:09 AM
>  Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Whiskering thanks to european retards
>
>
>  > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/03/research.engineering
>  > http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/
>
>
> They aren't a problem if the correct heat profile is used when assembling
>  the boards.
>
>  Leon
>
> --
>  Leon Heller
>  Amateur radio call-sign G1HSM
>  Yaesu FT-817ND and FT-857D transceivers
>  Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
>  leon355@...
>  http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------
>
>  Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and Photos:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBsYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Stefan Trethan wrote:
> And the right materials. (not pure tin)
> 
> And i resent the "retards" comment. The law may be stupid, but the
> ones a bit backward are those who didn't do their homework and courted
> trouble.
> Funny how thousands of companies have no problems.

The ROHS lot didn't do their homework in determining that lead leaching
from solder was actually a problem.

Yes, but that's not up for debate any more.

(And it is a problem, just not in the US or EU, it's a problem in
China and India and probably Africa next, but we don't care about that
lot, right?)



ST

On 4/6/08, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@...> wrote:
> Stefan Trethan wrote:
>  > And the right materials. (not pure tin)
>  >
>  > And i resent the "retards" comment. The law may be stupid, but the
>  > ones a bit backward are those who didn't do their homework and courted
>  > trouble.
>  > Funny how thousands of companies have no problems.
>
>
> The ROHS lot didn't do their homework in determining that lead leaching
>  from solder was actually a problem.
>
>
>  ------------------------------------
>
>  Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and Photos:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBsYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

If the law is stupid, then the people who resisted it are not backwards.
If the law is stupid, then it is still open to debate and should be  
overturned.
If the law is stupid, then the people who promoted it resemble retards.
If the law is stupid, then the thousands of companies that have "no  
problem" must be keeping their mouths shut.
Whether the law is stupid or not should be based on cost versus  
benefit analysis.
History is likely to show that ROHS fails to produce more benefits  
than costs.
AGSC

> On Apr 6, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Stefan Trethan wrote:
>
> Yes, but that's not up for debate any more.
>
> (And it is a problem, just not in the US or EU, it's a problem in
> China and India and probably Africa next, but we don't care about that
> lot, right?)
>
> ST
>
> On 4/6/08, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@...> wrote:
> > Stefan Trethan wrote:
> > > And the right materials. (not pure tin)
> > >
> > > And i resent the "retards" comment. The law may be stupid, but the
> > > ones a bit backward are those who didn't do their homework and  
> courted
> > > trouble.
> > > Funny how thousands of companies have no problems.
> >
> >
> > The ROHS lot didn't do their homework in determining that lead  
> leaching
> > from solder was actually a problem.
> >
> >


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, then let's just wait for history to show whatever it will show,
it's just the same old cr** time and time again when some reporter
somewhere happens to stumble about the same old story only he hasn't
heard before.
It's old news, please don't get all worked up by pictures of 30 year
old tin whiskers.

By the way, a few months back i challenged anyone to show pictures of
whiskers shown to grow from _current_ solder joints. That means i'm
NOT interested in pictures NASA shot in the 70's, i'm NOT interested
in pictures Swatch shot of badly plated crystal cases. I want to see
solder joints with whiskers that were made post ROHS taking effect. If
it's such a terrible thing it ought to happen all the time and be easy
to replicate in the lab.

Short story i have never seen a single picture of a whisker growing
out of modern leadfree solder. All the pictures are of tin plated
components (bright tin), and/or made a long time ago with unsuitable
metals when nobody even knew there would be any ROHS.

I challenge _you_ to find that proof as well.


My opinion: A better way to solve the problem might have been to
control where used electronics equipment goes once it fails (NOT
dumping it on the third world), and maybe putting some reasonable
quality requirements on imported goods so they last more than a week.
But, I have not done any research if this would have been a better
way, so i will not shout my mouth off about how stupid the law might
be. I doubt the people who regularly do so here have done that
research, but hey, everyone is entitled to his opinion.

I still strongly resent the choice of wording used for the thread
title, but my objection was made public and i don't really care to
discuss the topic _again_, the archives are full of it...

ST

On 4/6/08, agscal -AGSCalabrese <agscal@...> wrote:
> If the law is stupid, then the people who resisted it are not backwards.
>  If the law is stupid, then it is still open to debate and should be
>  overturned.
>  If the law is stupid, then the people who promoted it resemble retards.
>  If the law is stupid, then the thousands of companies that have "no
>  problem" must be keeping their mouths shut.
>  Whether the law is stupid or not should be based on cost versus
>  benefit analysis.
>  History is likely to show that ROHS fails to produce more benefits
>  than costs.
>  AGSC
>