[tinwhiskers] Lasky looks at RoHS 3 years later
- From: "Bob Landman" <rlandman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "tin whiskers forum" <tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'\(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum\)'" <Leadfree@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 18:37:21 -0400
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/20090726,12,3433/
,? 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/InspectionTechnicalGuides/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/000748.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/
Other related posts:
