Maybe we need an organization like this in the US? http://reachforlife.eu/home.php?lg=UK <http://reachforlife.eu/home.php?lg=UK&pg=3> &pg=3 _____ From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fritz, Dennis D. Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:57 AM To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [tinwhiskers] "Purchasing Environmentalism today - thread was - Re: R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers Patrick and others - I know the EPA study you point out below, as I had Jack Geibig of U of Tennessee and US EPA people report on cost/benefit for IPC meetings some 5-6 years ago. I regard this, and the "Stuttgart Study", as the best science ever done on the benefit/cost of conversion to lead-free solder. I must sadly report that the science/logic behind these studies has never been taken seriously, and that the U of Tennessee organization has morphed into another capacity. I had reason to contact Jack a couple of months ago, and he brought me up to speed on the newer organization in Knoxville. The study group is now called "Center for Clean Products". One of the activities is a cost benefits calculator which you may download from the following site: http://isse.utk.edu/ccp/index.html Another activity you will see on the Center for Clean Products is the EPEAT Program - managing IEEE standard 1680 - A Standard for Environmental Assessment of Personal Computer Products. A cornerstone of this is a rating scale for environmental impact of computers - 25 required characteristics (designated R in the sample below) and a rating of bronze, silver, and gold for fulfilling the 23 optional product characteristics labelled O below (there are 7 sections and I printed only 4.1). 4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials R 4.1.1.1 <http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx#criteriatable#criteriatable> Compliance with provisions of European RoHS Directive upon its effective date O 4.1.2.1 <http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx#criteriatable#criteriatable> Elimination of intentionally added cadmium R 4.1.3.1 <http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx#criteriatable#criteriatable> Reporting on amount of mercury used in light sources (mg) O 4.1.3.2 <http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx#criteriatable#criteriatable> Low threshold for amount of mercury used in light sources O 4.1.3.3 <http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx#criteriatable#criteriatable> Elimination of intentionally added mercury used in light sources O 4.1.4.1 <http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx#criteriatable#criteriatable> Elimination of intentionally added lead in certain applications O 4.1.5.1 <http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx#criteriatable#criteriatable> Elimination of intentionally added hexavalent chromium R 4.1.6.1 <http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx#criteriatable#criteriatable> Elimination of intentionally added SCCP flame retardants and plasticizers in certain applications O 4.1.6.2 <http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx#criteriatable#criteriatable> Large plastic parts free of certain flame retardants classified under European Council Directive 67/548/EEC O 4.1.7.1 <http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx#criteriatable#criteriatable> Batteries free of lead, cadmium and mercury O 4.1.8.1 <http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx#criteriatable#criteriatable> Large plastic parts free of PVC This EPEAT and IEEE 1680 requirement has been written into the Federal Acquisition Requirements for over a year now, and will be extended to federally purchased cell phones, printers, etc. You will see that the first requirement is COMPLIANCE TO EUROPEAN ROHS. So, our federally purchased computers (95% mandated) been required to be lead-free here in the US. While lead-free has not been required by manufacturing law, lead-free and PVC free have come in though the purchasing requirment. Hence, I have coined the term "Purchasing Environmentalism". Some of the EPEAT requirements I agree with - later sections require battery recycle, easy disassembly for board recyle, use of recycled plastics whereever possible. However, I think we science types have not understood how the purchasing game is being played, much to the amusement of the environmentalists advising the IEEE and EPEAT. Let me know off line if you want a copy of the Power Point I used in a presentation earlier this week on the topic of "Purchasing Environmentalism" Denny Fritz _____ From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Patrick Bruneel Sent: Fri 5/22/2009 10:35 AM To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers Such a report has been done by the EPA in 2005 “Solders in Electronics: A Life-Cycle Assessment” http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/pubs/solder/lca/lfs-lca-final.pdf If you look at page ES-16/table ES-4 and ES-5 it appears that SAC alloys have a higher impact on the environment compared to Sn/Pb in areas: Non renewable resource use, Energy use, Global warming, Ozone depletion and Water Quality. Since when have we (the US) become followers instead of leaders? Patrick -----Original Message----- From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:15 PM To: White, Robert Cc: 'tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers What this appears to be saying is that within a year the Federal Government is going to issue some sort of edict, and the States may not issue their own. That's probably a good thing. Left to their own devices, California would legislate science and Natural Law, as they have in the past. Those on this list in the U. S. A, please tell your elected representatives that any forthcoming legislation in this area needs to be in compliance with www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm which basically requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. The change to pure-tin-finishes and the attendant risk of tin-whisker-related failures, as well as this legislation itself, both appear to require an EIR. Steve Smith WR> Wow! Thanks for posting this. RoHS USA makes it’s appearance. WR> Wonder what means I can use to provide feedback on the exemptions WR> listed in Section 4 (a). I guess we need to work through our local WR> Representative of the House? Does anyone know if IPC or any other group is mounting a response? WR> Best Regards, WR> Bob White WR> Director of Safety and Environmental Compliance WR> Power-One, Inc. WR> Tel: +1 805 384-5391 WR> Fax: +1 805 987-3781 WR> robert.white@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:robert.white@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> WR> ________________________________ WR> From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx WR> [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Bruneel WR> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:27 AM WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers WR> Hard to believe but check the link below WR> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2420 WR> Patrick WR> ________________________________ WR> From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx WR> [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Southworth WR> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:51 AM WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers WR> Thanks Judy WR> Ron Southworth WR> ________________________________ WR> From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx WR> [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Little, Judy W (EHCOE) WR> Sent: Tuesday, 19 May 2009 1:35 AM WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers WR> Denny, WR> Have you seen the wonderful video lessons in observing whiskers WR> on the NASA Tin Whisker website? If not, just go to: WR> http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/video/inspection/index.html WR> Judy Little WR> Honeywell, Clearwater, Florida WR> ________________________________ WR> From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx WR> [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fritz, Dennis D. WR> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 20:16 WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx WR> Subject: RE: [tinwhiskers] R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers WR> We will have that capability, in addition to several versions of WR> ring lights, fiber-optic "goose neck" lights, etc. Seems to me WR> that the "shine' or the reflection off the whisker is important. I have the JEDEC spec. WR> Denny WR> ________________________________ WR> From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Gabriele Sala WR> Sent: Sat 5/16/2009 5:45 AM WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers WR> Hi Denny, WR> Here (from JEDEC Std. 22-A121A ) you can find some help. WR> In my experience Optical Stereo from 40X to 150X is good WR> enough, it depends how deep you want to investigate. WR> You must be careful when handling boards because whiskers are very fragile WR> Just my 2 € ‘ cents WR> Best Regards WR> Gabriele Sala WR> CT-91 WR> -------------------- WR> From the free download JEDEC Standards WR> http://www.jedec.org/download/default.cfm WR> Look for WR> JEDEC Standard No. 22-A121A WR> Test Method for Measuring Whisker Growth on Tin and Tin Alloy Surface Finishes WR> (Revision of JESD22-A121.01, December 2005) WR> Last level JULY 2008 WR> Page 3 WR> 4.3 Optical stereomicroscope (Optional) WR> Optical stereomicroscope with adequate lighting capable of 50X to 150X magnification and capable WR> of detecting whiskers with a minimum length of 10 microns, per Annex B. If tin whiskers are WR> measured with an optical system, then the system must have a WR> stage that is able to move in three WR> dimensions and rotate, such that whiskers can be positioned WR> perpendicular to the viewing direction WR> for measurement. WR> 4.4 Optical microscope (Optional) WR> Optical microscope with adequate lighting capable of 100X to 300X magnification and capable of WR> measuring whiskers with a minimum length of 10 microns, per Annex B. For tin whisker WR> measurements, the optical system must have a stage that is able to move in three dimensions and WR> rotate, such that whiskers can be positioned perpendicular to the viewing direction for WR> measurement. WR> 4.5 Scanning electron microscope WR> Scanning electron microscope (SEM) capable of at least 250X WR> magnification. An SEM fitted with WR> an X-ray detector is recommended for elemental identification. WR> From: WR> tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> WR> [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@freelists .org?>] On Behalf Of Fritz, Dennis D. WR> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 11:41 AM WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; WR> tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers WR> What is your whiskers inspection methodology? WR> I am getting ready to do a study with Purdue undergraduate WR> interns (who work for a VERY attractive price for our program). WR> We will determine both the extent of whiskers growth on commercial WR> boards - scrap cell phones and laptops, and the ease of WR> measurement by "semi-skilled" operators. We will be using optical WR> microscope, enhanced digital microscope, and simple SEM. WR> Can you share your proceedures? WR> Denny Fritz WR> SAIC - Merrillville, IN WR> ________________________________ WR> From: WR> tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behal f of Jim Bunn WR> Sent: Fri 5/15/2009 10:55 AM WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers WR> I think they are saying it works if the thickness is at least WR> 2mils. Or maybe that the coating is better than nothing. WR> We have a lot of uncoated stuff out there running a test right WR> now. And it's pretty comprensive considering the voltage levels WR> that we are using in the PCUs. I'm suprised that we have not had some kind of problem. WR> ________________________________ WR> From: WR> tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Pedro Tort WR> Sent: Thu 5/14/2009 7:48 AM WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] New study on coating to mitigate whiskers WR> The National Physics Laboratory in UK has undertaken a study on WR> the capability of different coatings to mitigate tin whiskers WR> growth. The results of this investigation reinforces the findings WR> of Jay Bruse and Dr. Henning Leidecker who back in 2007 found the WR> Uralane 5750 Polyurethane was an effective mitigation strategy for WR> tin whiskers provided the nominal coating thickness was 2mils. WR> I quote from the first issue of the NPL Electronics Interconnection Newsletter: WR> "The use=2 0of conformal coatings is seen as the only practical WR> means of controlling whisker growths shorting adjacent conductors WR> on a PCB. NPL has studied three types of coating, to assess their WR> effectiveness for inhibiting whisker growth. WR> Two coatings, polyurethane and paraxylene both were found to WR> reduce the growth of whiskers for up to 150 days of testing, WR> compared with failure of 14 days for uncoated samples. The acrylic WR> coating was found not to perform as well as the others in parallel WR> tests. All coatings failed to provide sufficient protection in WR> areas of insufficient coating coverage, at corners and sides of the test samples." WR> Pedro Tort WR> Quality Manager WR> DigiProces, S.A. WR> Solsones, 87 - P.I. Pla de la Bruguera WR> P.O. Box 127 WR> E-08211 CASTELLAR DEL VALLES WR> TEL. +34 937 142 132 WR> FAX. +34 937 142 072 WR> www.digiproces.com<http://www.digiproces.com/> WR> This email and any files contained therein is confidential and WR> may contain privileged information. If you are not the named WR> addressee(s) or you have otherwise received this in error, you WR> should not distribute or copy this e-mail or use any of its WR> content for any purpose. Please notify the sender immediately by WR> e-mail if you have received this e-mail in error and delete it from your system WR> No virus found in this incoming message. WR> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com WR> Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.30/2115 - Release Date: 05/14/09 17:54:00 WR> No virus found in this incoming message. WR> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com WR> Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.32/2117 - Release Date: 05/17/09 16:58:00 -- Best regards, Steve mailto:steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.consultingscientist.us http://www.pickensplan.com/