So what's the truth about lead-free solder ?

Yep, sounds like a lawyer-driven test case to me. As soon as I see the words "fair", "free" and "speech", and "rights" in a sentence that also contains the word "lawyer", I'm immediately thinking that way ...

Arfa

I know what the source is, you stupid f*ck.

You bring shame to it.

signal.

complained

The suit will fail miserably on the very point I made.

F*ck off, yap dog.

infriging

Wrong. Single frames of video, as well as short clips are 100% allowable.

You are an apparently assuming nitwit.

You infringe on those of us that are intelligent.

of

I do not know if the term "amusingly" is appropriate.

I don't know if I would ever describe a failure of any kind as being "spectacular" either.

The term miserably comes to mind in both instances, as that is exactly what it has caused nearly all involved.

Hopefully, said misery will come full circle, and bite the politicians that started this CRAP right in the ass. It will certainly have an economic impact, and they will likely find some way to squirm clear of any blame, but the fact remains, that there was no science involved, and that technically we already knew about this decades ago when our REAL scientists formulated the solders we now know for a fact to be superior in all respects.

of

Got to agree. My view is it was pushed for a political agenda rather than a scientific one (duh) and a reduction in hazardous substances has not and will not be achieved from the directive. There are more hazardous chemicals used (by volume) for the replacement processes than is removed by the RoHS directive, amusingly. Another issue is because of the suspect reliability of equipment (there definitely seems to be more failures in RoHS compliant products), more equipment is actually made. With the WEEE directive it simply means that more parts are used, and the costs go up due to the cost of dealing with / recycling defective equipment. Doesn't make much sense, really.

On the refinishing front, if we could buy SnPb finished parts, we would. These are still available directly from manufacturers of some parts for the aerospace industry, but not from others. Having two processes drives up their costs, so we either pay the manufacturer for it or pay our own facilities for it. Either way, the end product cost increases.

If the object of the exercise was to reduce hazardous substances, it has failed spectacularly.

Cheers

PeteS

copyright infriging

What part of " within their rights to ask" did you misunderstand ?

Graham

I'd like to see Emperor Barroso humiliared over something for sure.

Graham

one of

Amusing does not need to be 'funny' - it's more sarcastic in this sense. Spectacular, likewise, does not need to imply something good - merely that the failure of the directive to achieve it's aims was not merely 'fail', but a very impressive fail.

I personally hope it comes back to bite the politicians (and there are good reasons it might), but most of them are either teflon covered or have safely retired.

Cheers

PeteS

Perhaps is right.

There are no people as conservative as the safety case folks in avionics safety critical systems. They will want 20 years worth of data because that is the typical lifetime of a system once installed in the civilian market.

Cheers

PeteS

What are "liters"? Do you mean "litres"?

Stiff wire brush and lye soap? AKA "GI Shower"?

I'd smack him, but s*it splatters.

Stiff bristle. Yes. I wanted to see if the brainless one knew more than his grade.

:) good one.

that's thoughtful of you. He has pumped himself so full of it that it would splatter everywhere if you burst his self-inflated bubble.

The brush I'd use on you involves really fast moving pieces of lead.

I could easily "brush" away that jaw pain I hope you are feeling deeply right now. It would be nice if your retarded buddy was standing in line so that I could perform two brush jobs with one spray of my lead brush.

Consider that an offer to have a brush with the facts of life, as you are so obviously ill informed in the realm.

Never made any such claim.

For one thing, I know that it is an aptitude test, not a "smarts test".

Your aptitude hovers near nil.