Wow so RoHs for the Cell Phones industry is a success - in what sense? Now I know why mine won't last 18 months, and has to be replaced, I thought comms was RoHs exempt, but now we know. In the past nine years, I've been through seven phones, the wife five phones, my brother seven phones, my mum who hardly ever uses hers three phones and so on. Not replaced to get new features or because the battery needs replacing but because the phone can't perform its prime function to make or receive a simple phone call. And not one manufacturer, Motorola, Nokia Siemens, Panasonic, and a few others. I do however have an old non RoHs leaded Marconi Phone must be 25 years old, and a Vodaphone car phone from the early 90's which we found last year while clearing out the factory junk store, they both powered up and the Vodaphone finds a network for emergency service. I also have an early Motorola brick phone the kids play with, that will work if you put a sim in it though the batteries are not so good, I don't know but assume it thus must have lead in it. The mobile phone companies must love him for promoting RoHs, it's making them a fortune peddling rubbish. Regs Mark Dr. Mark Vaughan Ph'D., B.Eng. M0VAU Managing Director Vaughan Industries Ltd., reg in UK no 2561068 Water Care Technology Ltd, reg in UK no 4129351 Addr Unit3, Sydney House, Blackwater, Truro, Cornwall, TR4 8HH UK. Phone/Fax 44 (0) 1872 561288 RSGB DRM111 (Cornwall) -----Original Message----- From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Parnagian, Edward Sent: 08 September 2009 16:09 To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; '(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)' Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: Lasky looks at RoHS 3 years later Keep in mind that Dr Lasky has been a very vocal advocate for lead-free from the beginning. A major point in his rationale is its "successful" implementation in cell phones. Also note his affiliation with Indium Corp. Ed -----Original Message----- From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Landman Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 6:37 PM To: tin whiskers forum; '(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)' Subject: [tinwhiskers] Lasky looks at RoHS 3 years later http://www.designnews.com/blog/Lead_Free_Zone_Blog/21260-Lasky_looks_at_RoHS _3_years_later.php Lasky looks at RoHS 3 years later August 18, 2009 "Dr. Ron Lasky put out a blog indicating that the transition to RoHS-compliant electronic components has been a success. In his blog, "RoHS 3 Years Later http://www.indium.com/blogs/Dr-Lasky-Blog/RoHS-3-Years-Later/20090726,12,343 3/ ," Lasky - who has spent 10 years following the lead-free movement - notes that more than $1 trillion dollars worth of RoHS compliant electronics have been manufactured "without significant incident." He notes that the $1 trillion figure is derived by the total parts produced since the July 1, 2006 RoHS deadline and includes parts that go into countries that don't have RoHS laws. Since most component manufacturers did not run two lines of compliant and non-compliant parts, even parts going into areas without RoHS laws were RoHS compliant.He explains that part of the success of the RoHS conversion was the lack of hard monitoring by the European Union. The relaxed compliance atmosphere allowed the industry to make a smooth transition without interruptions in supply of electronic parts and finished goods." "Lasky also notes the unintended benefit of the RoHS conversion. "In third-world countries, electronics are recycled for usable electrical components and scrap metal," says Lasky. "Almost all of this recycling is performed unsafely. With RoHS-compliant products, this unsafe recycling will be done more safely."" Posted by Rob Spiegel http://www.designnews.com/blog/profile/8931-Rob_Spiegel.php on August 18, 2009 | How would Lasky know this to be true? Where's the data? Dr. Henning Leidecker at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21151552/wid/11915829/ has advised me that there are failures. NASA is sworn to disclose them or they would not be told about them. Catch 22. Why? Lawsuits, that's why! Has anyone died due to failures in Medtronic pacemakers (which were subject to an FDA recall due to tin whisker shorts)? http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/InspectionGuides/InspectionTechnicalGui des/ucm072921.htm FDA does not say in this report. There is nothing in the open literature that I've been able to find. That leads me to conclude that the cases were settled out of court and the records sealed. Does anyone here know otherwise? According to this blog http://scadaperspective.com/pipermail/scada_scadaperspective.com/2008-June/0 00748.html there are failures (again, the company experiencing them is not mentioned): "... according to the factory manager of one of the largest industrial automation and embedded computing companies in the world, it isn't fiction. What they've done is increase infant mortality testing, heightened quality requirements, gone six sigma, and they are still seeing a sharp rise in warranty claims due to solder issues." Isn't 3 years too soon to tell? Three to five years is the expected time for whiskers to grow long enough to cause shorts. Lets not pop the champagne cork just yet. Se also http://www.calce.umd.edu/tin-whiskers/TINWHISKERFAILURES.pdf It is premature to suggest at this time that there have been no "significant incident" failures due to tin whiskers. Unless the persons doing the analysis knows how to detect them (10% of them are visible to the naked eye, the rest require magnified inspection and special lighting, knows where to look for them (presuming they are not vaporized in the shorting incident), how would Lasky be so certain such incidents never happened? Bob Landman, President Life Senior Member, IEEE IEEE Power & Energy/Reliability Societies IEEE Standards Association H&L Instruments, LLC www.hlinstruments.com/ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.