[tinwhiskers] Re: [LF] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review conference report

  • From: "Parnagian, Edward" <ed.parnagian@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:31:01 +0100

Hi, Bob!

The URL to the FDA Medtronic Tin Whisker Recall results in a "not found" 
response.  Do you have another pointer to that still works?

Thanks,
Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Landman
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 1:09 PM
To: '(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)'; 'James, Chris'
Cc: tin whiskers forum
Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: [LF] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review conference 
report


Here's a partial list of problems ignored by the EU and major manufacturers as 
they have switched to lead-free manufacturing to comply with the EU lead ban.

PREFACE:

The waivers for defense and high rel products are essentially useless (unless 
one sends parts to a replater to dip them in molten lead) as the major 
component vendors have rushed to embrace lead-free manufacturing.  They have, 
in many cases, mixed their lead and lead-free parts by using the same part 
numbers for both.  They have refused to make available to RoHS exempt 
industries lead bearing platings on components.

1)  Microsoft's XBOX as has been widely discussed on this and other forums

2)  increased number of failures in recently purchased PC products

3)  subject matter experts of published environmental tests show increased 
amounts of failures in lead-free manufacturing (mechanical connection failures) 
including parts popping off boards, voids in BGA balls, etc... Manufacturers 
continue to state lead-free manufacturing is "ok", "no problems found"

4)  Conformal coatings mitigate the growth of tin whiskers (and not using lead 
in solder guarantees that whiskers will grow) yet commercial product 
manufacturers (including a major telecom product provider who shall remain 
nameless) told me and several others on a teleconference that I attended on 
behalf of the Dept of Homeland Security, that "the selling price of the 
products cannot bear the cost adder of conformal coating".

5)  Swatch watch company gets a waiver to use lead as millions of their watches 
fail due to tin whisker shorts on crystal oscillator

6)  FDA forced Medtronic to recall their implanted cardiac defibrilators (from 
patients bodies) when whiskers shorted the devices.
    http://www.fda.gov/ora/inspect_ref/itg/itg42.html

7)  a major Ethernet switch maker has senior field service personnel who have 
not been told of the potential for tin whisker growth so when failures happen, 
boards are simply replaced.  Reason given is that "customers pay for service 
contracts so who cares what the reason is that they fail so long as we repair 
them quickly".

8)  a major contract assembler states at a recent IEEE Reliability Society 
meeting that they see no problems with lead-free manufacturing yet an aside 
from one of their customers was said to me that "of course they don't see the 
problems, we see them AFTER we ship the product."

9)  all the whisker failures reported here 
http://nepp.nasa.gov/WHISKER/failures/index.htm plus I am advised by NASA that 
they have confidentiality agreements with many others who call in to report 
problems which prevents them from listing the failures

10) I was recently at a national meeting on lead-free manufacturing where it 
was admitted that on many warplane systems there are lead-free manufacturing 
problems but the manufacturers refuse to go public with the information.

11) Anonymous (Terrestrial Application) - Field Failures First Observed Circa 
2003
   http://nepp.nasa.gov/WHISKER/anecdote/2003ckt_breaker/index.html

12)  over 15,000 papers have been published on the subject of tin whiskers 
http://www.dbicorporation.com/rohsbib.htm yet to this day, no-one can state why 
they grow or how without lead to stop them, how quickly they grow, how long 
they will grow.

13) white paper by the AIA outlining the problems 
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/wp_leadfree_0208.pdf

14)  As was recently posted here by Denny Fritz:

A large amount of information has been accumulated in the Aerospace/Defense 
community about lead based versus lead-free solders/solder joints.  A good 
place to start to tap this knowledge has recently been gathered at the Defense 
Acquisition University web site:

https://acc.dau.mil/leadfree

I will point out the second item on the list - the Lead-free Electronics 
"Manhattan Project" to compile the "best practices" for use of lead based or 
lead-free solder in harsh environements.  15 leading metallurgical scientists 
in the US met for two weeks to compile this 350 page baseline.   Since then, 
the same 15 met again in August to outline the required research to close the 
knowledge gaps between leaded and lead-free solder, particularly in harsh 
environments.

15) The AIA and others are proposing to the US Dept of Defense a $95M project 
which will take three years and which will hopefully come up with solutions to 
the present problems with lead-free manufacturing.

The bottom line is, that util the problems outlined above are solved, if the EU 
does not want people to die from an increased amount of failures in 
transportation, electric power, medical devices, not to mention the waste and 
expense of filling landfills to overflowing with an increasing number of failed 
electronic products, the EU should immediately retract the RoHS ban on lead in 
manufacturing electronic assemblies and components and instead specify that at 
least 5% lead should be in all tin coatings and solders.

Bob Landman
H&L Instruments, LLC





-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:Leadfree@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James, Chris
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 11:19 AM
To: Leadfree@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [LF] [tinwhiskers] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review conference 
report

What evidence do you have to be able to assert this defamatory
statement:

"Knowing the EU and how the major manufacturers suck up as they do not seem to 
be concerned about products surviving past their warranty period, I highly 
doubt this report is factual."



-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:Leadfree@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Whittaker, Dewey
(EHCOE)
Sent: 25 January 2010 16:10
To: Leadfree@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [LF] [tinwhiskers] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review conference 
report

I am not aware that any of the so-called halogen-free laminate materials will 
meet the Class 3 or 3/A requirements of IPC-6012 when pre-conditioned per 
IPC-TM-650, Method 2.6.7 (Thermal Stress Testing per
3.6.1.3 of the Rev C going to ballot), let alone some of the other 
idiosyncrasies that are currently being addressed.
Dewey

-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:Leadfree@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Landman
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 3:55 PM
To: Leadfree@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [LF] [tinwhiskers] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review conference 
report

According to this EU article, manufacturers have successfully transitioned from 
halogenated and pthalate containing pc boards without any difficulty.

Is this true?

Are the new boards flame retardant?

Do they survive multiple passes at lead-free soldering temperatures?

What about delamination?

What about pad cratering?

Other issues?

Knowing the EU and how the major manufacturers suck up as they do not seem to 
be concerned about products surviving past their warranty period, I highly 
doubt this report is factual.

I would appreciate comments from those who have more than one year of 
experience with these new board materials.

Do they pass the UL flame and smoke tests?

What other tests are they certified to pass?

Have the tests been altered so these new board materials can pass?

What are the life cycle testing -55C to +125C - results?

-40C to +85C life cycle testing results?

Shock?

Vibration?

How many layers?  (at least 24?)

Will the Airbus avionics be using these new board materials and if so when?

Bob Landman
H&L Instruments, LLC

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2010, at 12:28 PM, "John Burke" <john@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> FYI see link for report in email below
>
> John Burke
> (408) 515 4992
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SMART Group smart-e-link [mailto:SMART-E-
> LINK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nigel Burtt
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 1:43 AM
> To: SMART-E-LINK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review conference report
>
> "Greening Consumer Electronics - from Hazardous Material to
> Sustainable Solutions Conference" in the European Parliament held on
> 18 November
> 2009
>
> Leading companies within the electronics sector sent strong message to
> EU regulators at ChemSec Conference: Moving away from Brominated Flame
> Retardants and PVC is possible, feasible and is already happening! The
> question is not whether electrical and electronic equipment industry
> can phase out these chemicals, but when, says Jill Evans, Member of
> the European Parliament. (Rapporteur leading the drafting of recast
> amendments to
> RoHS)
>
>
> Full report including presentations and video
>
> http://www.chemsec.org/rohs/conference
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Nigel
>



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.

Other related posts: