EU lead-free directive

I heard that too, that you can pass the limits by delivering the electronics on top of a 5 pound solid steel slab. That is almost infinitely silly.

Since the leaded cases can easily be combined with the rest of the leadfree technology, eg leadfree pcb, leadfree solder, ... I'd just use up the stock and just don't tell anyone.

Rene

Peter schrieb:

It works on a per-material basis.

Yes, it is a problem, and it has already been discussed here and elsewhere.

Rene Tschaggelar schrieb:

You're wrong, it works vice versa: you can easily use lead-free parts in a lead-containing process (except for BGAs, and unless the higher soldering temperature won't damage the older parts that were built for lower temperatures). Once you have switched to leadfree solder in the wave soldering machine, any lead-containing part (especially PCBs with HAL) will contaminate the solder. Of course you need /many/ parts before the solder reaches 0.1% lead...

(SMT/Reflow is much simpler in this concern, as the solder does not touch anything else.)

What does this mean?

Peter schrieb:

Each material must be RoHS conform, for example contain less than 0.1% lead (similar tresholds exist for the other "evil" substances).

As an example, often an IC is used: it consists of a) the die itself b) the leadframe c) the expoxy encasing d) the surface finish of the leads.

Another example is a simple cable, where the metal wire is defined as a single material and the plastic insulation as another material, and both must conform to the RoHS limits.

For assembled boards, this extents to the PCB base material, its surface finish (HAL) where it persists after soldering, the solder, and all parts (for those see above).

Thank you for the explanation. This in effect means that chips (SMT ot PTH) with leaded solder on their legs cannot be used.

There will be a LOT of stock being scrapped. Smaller companies will just lie :) Remove the datecodes on any such chips of course, as anything dated before about 2004 isn't likely to be ROHS compliant.

A really stupid regulation, given the huge amount of lead used in car batteries for example....

I am reminded of a mass-produced packaged "lunch" sold by a well-known American company that consists of crackers, lunch meat (e.g., cold ham, turkey, or sausage), cheese slices, a small candy bar, and a container of fruit juice. Because of the labeling laws in the U.S., the weight of the juice was included in the weight of the product, and the weight of "fat" as a proportion of the total weight of the product was below a specified threshold, so it could be sold as "low fat."

Regards,

-=Dave

"Peter" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

It's laws and directives on one side, and people and companies not (fully) complying with them on the other side. It has always been that way. So you can take a risk, pay a fine if you get caught, and probably a very damn small one, if you explain your situation. Soup is not consumed as hot as it is prepared.

Peter schrieb:

Exactly. And particularly these are one of the exceptions, and will be used without any change.

Note that this requirement will probably trickle down to the engineer. Management will ask the eng. to state that the product complies. Guess who gets the blame.

gm

Peter wrote: [...]

Not really, considering the usually responsible way used up batteries are dealt with, and the usually convenient way used up electronics are dealt with.

As long as you have a RoHS statement from the manufacturer, there is no way you as an engineer can be held culpable if the mfr doesn't fully comply.

Oh so management will take the blame.... I don't think so.

Anyway it's certainly a big change in components and change in process that will take a relative long time to iorn out.

gm

Hello Bryan,

Car batteries yes. Mostly. But what about those things with sealed lead acid batteries in them?

Regards, Joerg

Speaking of who gets blamed, I once insisted on working a contract type job as an employee. It was medical equipment. Anybody sues us, they can't sue an employee, as they could a subcontractor.

Sorry, that was an interesting interpretation, was tried and caused sqeals of protest from the EU tech committes.

It was 0.1% of ANY homogenous material, not the total weight. Homogenous was defined as any material that canot be mechanically divided.

Maybe the French saying "stick your constitution where the sun don't shine" will give them something else to think about, instead of crazy lead-free rules and dictates.

Barry Lennox

Hello Barry,

Doesn't open that a door to another interpretation battle? Even a die can be mechanically divided with a dicing saw. So if that won't count as being separable, how about potting up the whole thing?

Regards, Joerg

You are wrong here. If you are the person in the company who is the professional expert on the subject and your advice is wrong, it is you who can be personally sued. If your advice is correct and the management over-rule it, then the management can be sued.

Of course what actually happens depends upon the type of loss. If the loss is a simple monetary one, then the company can be held to be vicariously liable and are likely to be sued as well, because they are the ones with the (insurance) money. But if the loss is of a life, then it is the individual engineer who is the one in the dock on the manslaughter charge.

If you want, I am sure that I can find you some examples.

tim

Only if you are an officer of the company and are a "PE" or similar with sign-off responsibility.

On this side of the pond, they must first prove criminal negligence, otherwise it's simply a financial responsibility of the company.

...Jim Thompson