[tinwhiskers] Re: [LF] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review conference report
- From: "Bob Landman" <rlandman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'\(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum\)'" <Leadfree@xxxxxxx>, "'Mike Buetow'" <mbuetow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "tin whiskers forum" <tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:13:51 -0500
Thanks Mike.
Denying a problem exists does not make the problem disappear. NASA discovered
that the hard way twice with the space shuttle.
What is bordering on being criminal behavior is to keep saying there are no
problems with lead-free manufacturing, and not disclosing failures (not
allowing NASA to report them) for fear of lawsuits and competitors pointing
fingers.
We know how this story ends, of course the truth will eventually come out after
the body count is high enough or the disaster is spectacular enough.
In one of the areas that my company sells products helps to protect utility
workers and the public from explosions of transformers and circuit breakers.
The need for our product dramatically intensifies after people die. Sad but
true.
This is human nature. Large companies self-insure. They do a calculation
called "avoided cost". It may be less costly to pay off lawsuits if they occur
(and, of course, by settling out of court, the record of the failure is hidden)
rather than expense the upfront cost of fixing the problem before injury or
death occurs.
Remember those tobacco executives who raised their hands at a congressional
hearing swearing that smoking cigarettes was not addictive? They knew they
were lying to Congress but they also knew their jobs and their industry
depended on those lies.
What has appeared to happen in this instance is that the major electronics
manufacturers have stuck their necks very far out, committed to lead-free
manufacturing so they could sell in the EU, assumed solutions would be found
before the ban went into effect. When adequate solutions were not at hand,
instead of going to the EU and demanding the ban be shelved until the problems
were all solved, they kept quiet.
Component and solder and soldering equipment manufacturers were complicit. $40B
is the estimated new sales of lead-free products due to the lead ban. A tidy
profit for some; misery for others. iNEMI came up with a consensus standard
that everyone could meet (so it seems) that calls for no more than six months
of no whisker growth (no more than 50 microns). Almost everyone in industry
(as well as Asia and California got on board and told the public that "all is
well, we are green, and the products are fine".
No, things are not fine.
Bob Landman
H&L Instruments, LLC
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:Leadfree@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Buetow
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 2:23 PM
To: Leadfree@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [LF] [tinwhiskers] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review conference
report
I'm here... While we have covered some of this piecemeal, I think it's worth
running as a compilation.
Nice work, Bob.
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:Leadfree@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Burke
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 2:02 PM
To: Leadfree@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [LF] [tinwhiskers] FW: [SMART] Very useful RoHS review conference
report
Excellent summary - suggest that If Mike Butow is on the forum he may want to
publish this?
John Burke
(408) 515 4992
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:Leadfree@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Landman
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 10:09 AM
To: Leadfree@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [LF] [tinwhiskers] 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
>
Other related posts:
