Connect with us

More on lead-free junk solder

Discussion in 'Electronic Repair' started by N Cook, May 10, 2007.

  1. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    Yes, that's what I read too. Still, I'm glad that it's also being hailed as
    a success for common sense, and that the greengrocer's stand against the
    bureaucrats who started it, is being directly cited as one of the reasons
    for it being dropped, even if it's not strictly true ...

    Arfa
     
  2. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    Spot on. And the unthinking clueless rabble who support it only care about
    simplistic ideas like "lead is bad" despite its very valuable uses in many
    areas.

    Even worse is that their nonsense has now actually become counter-productive.
    Lead-free soldering will result in shorter product lifetimes which will result
    in *more waste* !!!

    Graham
     

  3. Lead makes might fine bullets for the day that its time to replace a
    defective government.

    Does anyone else see the irony in this? Their stupid directives are
    making more lead available to make the very ammunition that may be used
    to remove them from office, so the can be replaced by anyone with a
    brain.




    --
    Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
    prove it.
    Member of DAV #85.

    Michael A. Terrell
    Central Florida
     
  4. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    I'm waiting for the day when they catch on to lead flashing on roofs. It's
    the perfect product for the job, and never needs replacing in the lifetime
    of the building. But wait ! Isn't that acid rain washing down over it year
    in year out? Must be causing huge quantities of that naughty lead stuff to
    be getting into our kids' brains and making the teachers look stupid. Better
    replace it with a lead-free product that costs four times as much, and leaks
    after 3 years ! Better yet, the new replacement product self degrades in
    just 10 years under the influence of the sun's UV !!

    Excellent ! Draft the new Euro-reg right now, and work out some penalties
    for using the old stuff. Create a new department with an army of enforcement
    agents, and give them each a 4x4 so that they can get to the building sites
    without a problem ...

    Seriously though, it's really beginning to feel like it's going that way. or
    is it just me ??

    Arfa
     
  5. Guest

    Oh, I dunno.... I have some 95/5 tin/silver solder situations that
    have lasted 20+ years of exterior conditions. In point of fact, I
    chose that mix for just that reason. I also use the same mix for
    critical solders where it is a double-major PITA to get to them in
    case of future failure.

    Peter Wieck
    Wyncote, PA
     
  6. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    I bet that needs a hot iron ! d;~}

    Arfa
     
  7. Guest

    No more so than regular 63/37, as it happens. Rosin core as well and
    rated for electronics. I use a fairly fine solder, and work on the
    theory that a short amount of hot iron is better for the components at
    hand than a longer amount of (slightly) lower heat. NOT CHEAP! But in
    the natural order of things, cheaper than a call-back.
     
  8. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    Interesting. I'll take a further look into it.

    Arfa
     
  9. bz

    bz Guest

    <http://www.asset-
    intertech.com/pressroom/whitePapers/Lead_free_whitepaper.pdf>

    Melting Point.
    40/60. 230°C.
    50/50. 214°C.
    60/40. 190°C.
    63/37. 183°C.
    95/5. 224°C



    --
    bz 73 de N5BZ k

    please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
    infinite set.

    remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
     
  10. Guest

    You are correct, my 95/5 has been discontinued, the 'new' replacement
    is:

    http://www.hmcelectronics.com/cgi-bin/scripts/product/4800-0104/

    with a melting point of ~217C.

    Peter Wieck
    Wyncote, PA
     
  11. Chris Jones

    Chris Jones Guest

    No way, ordinary consumers would understand and object to banning of lead
    flashing, whereas complaining about solder seems a bit too geeky and so
    won't make the news. The only time I ever saw anything about RoHS in the
    ordinary news was when some church-organ-maker was complaining because the
    traditional material for his lead organ pipes would be banned unless he
    replaced the electric blower with some kind of manual pump, to make it
    non-electric. Of course that got an exception, something like because it
    was a fixed installation in the building. I wonder if you nail down your
    TV to the floor.....

    Seriously though, aluminium flashing (not alloy but very PURE aluminium)
    will last quite a long time in the rain (according to my grandfather who
    would probably have known, because he did build rooves over a period of
    well over half a century. He was also a big fan of lead paint and hated
    the new stuff because it wouldn't last hardly any time, probably not even
    50 years...)

    Chris
     
  12. Jamie

    Jamie Guest

  13. bz

    bz Guest

    Not surprising as 95/5 tin/copper is NOT a eutectic mixture.

    You do NOT want to use non eutectic mixtures as they pass through a
    plastic stage when cooling('cold solder joints' if disturbed during
    plastic state) and their melting point is higher than the eutectic.


    Tin-Copper eutectic (Sn99.3/Cu0.7) 227 c
    Tin-Silver eutectic (Sn96.5/Ag3.5) 221 c
    CASTIN® eutectic (Sn96.2/Ag2.5/Cu0.8/Sb0.5) 216 c
    http://www.smtinfo.net/Db/_Solder Alloy.html

    CASTIN looks like a good bet.


    --
    bz 73 de N5BZ k

    please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
    infinite set.

    remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
     
  14. N Cook

    N Cook Guest



    Wiltshire | Archive | 2006 | March | 23
    EU directive prompts fears for cathedral's organ

    From the Salisbury Journal, first published Thursday 23rd Mar 2006.

    MUSIC-LOVERS are keeping their fingers crossed that Salisbury Cathedral's
    historic Father Willis organ will be renovated before the latest EU
    directive comes into force a ruling that could silence the grand pipe organs
    found in cathedrals, churches and concert halls across the UK.

    Salisbury's magnificent organ, built in 1877, is currently out of service,
    as its console is undergoing repair and restoration in Durham, along with
    the equally famous organ from the Royal Festival Hall in London.

    The new directive from the European Commission aims to reduce the amount of
    lead used in electrical items and comes into force on July 1.

    This week, Tim Hone, director of liturgy and music at Salisbury cathedral,
    said that, providing the organ's repair and updating was completed before
    that date, it would not contravene the directive.

    He told the Journal: "We are anticipating its return around Easter, which
    will give us plenty of time. But if anything delays the work, we could run
    into problems."

    He said the directive sought to minimise the amount of hazardous waste that
    finds its way into landfill. Lead is one such hazard and the new regulations
    permit electrical equipment to have a maximum of 0.1 per cent of their
    weight as lead.

    Organ pipes, which are made from tin and lead to give them their distinct
    sound, can have a lead content of 50 per cent.

    Mr Hone said that, although organ pipes were mainly mechanical devices, they
    relied on electrical motors to power blowers, which move air through them
    and that brought the organ into the definition of an electrical product.

    But organ experts are baffled as to why the directive should apply to
    organs, because, when organs are rebuilt, the lead is not thrown away but is
    reused in new or different pipes.

    The directive has worried the Institute of British Organ Building because it
    could see the end of the 1,000-year-old craft of organ-building in Britain.
    The institute said: "There is a very black cloud on the horizon".

    Tony Baldry, Tory MP for Banbury, is urging the government to intervene to
    save the organ. The department of trade and industry has warned that Britain
    must comply with the directive, although exemptions could be granted by the
    EU.

    Mr Hone said that, unless an exemption were made or the directive redrafted,
    Salisbury will face the problem again the next time the organ pipes need
    cleaning and restoration.

    from
    http://archive.salisburyjournal.co.uk/2006/3/23/266296.html
     
  15. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    I saw a similar thing up here, but I think in the end, it turned out to be
    hysterical nonsense, and that the organ builders had basically done what the
    people who made this crap legislation in the first place had done - which is
    to not to do their homework right in the first place. I seem to remember
    reading subsequently that it was not the pipework that was going to be
    affected, but the control electronics. I'm no expert in pipe organ
    restoration, but I understand that when they are rebuilt and brought up to
    date, various control electronics are added now, and that it was going to be
    this that would be affected. One such organ builder complained that it was
    going to put his current restoration project back six months, because that
    was how long it was going to take his electronics supplier, to tool up for
    the legislation.

    Arfa
     
  16. Jerry Peters

    Jerry Peters Guest

    How about this one:
    http://ellsworthmaine.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7446&Itemid=31

    Not lead, but mercury in compact flourescent bulbs, and what happens
    when you have imbecile who gets the government involved.

    Jerry
     
  17. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    Oh boy - don't start me on that one. The Euro-twats are already on this.
    They are now trying to totally ban the sale of all incandescent light bulbs
    in Europe, by 2010 I think it is. It has been advocated by that Merkel woman
    from Germany, I believe, and of course, Blair has signed up to it without
    question. All in the name of the great god "Green" again.

    In theory, CFLs already contain more mercury than can be legally disposed of
    at a council tip. My local tip ( Borough Council Recycling Centre - Ha ! )
    has facilities for taking ordinary fluorescent tubes off you, but no
    specific facilities for CFLs. Winter in our latitudes are cold and dark -
    just ideal for CFLs - NOT!! When I turn a light on, irrespective of what the
    air temperature is, I want LIGHT. I do not want to have to wait 3 minutes
    whilst the bloody thing warms up and goes through a range of colours from
    cat urine yellow to Venus on a summer's night white ...

    As far as the 'lack of efficiency' thing goes, there is a groundswell of
    alternate opinion on this, in that the 'wasted' energy is released as heat,
    which actually serves to offset the heating requirements of the house, given
    that most dwellings these days are well insulated to *prevent* the loss of
    heat to the outside. So for every 50 watts of lost efficiency from a 60 watt
    light bulb, that's basically 50 watts of house heating not required. If this
    additional input is lost, then it will have to be put back in from the
    outside.

    Then there's the fact that CFLs contain a switching inverter circuit,
    containing a number of components that all have to be manufactured, then
    shipped, then assembled onto a pcb that has to be made and shipped. Then all
    of that has to be integrated into a package design that is much more complex
    to manufacture, and containing many more component parts than a conventional
    light bulb. Remember that all of those parts have to be made and shipped as
    well. Now add in a smattering of dangerous chemicals, including mercury and
    the tri-phosphor compounds employed to turn the UV into visible light, and
    what do you finish up with ? A potentially dangerous household item ( see
    Jerry's article link ) that weighs twice as much as a conventional bulb - so
    needs a higher energy budget for shipping - that's actually not terribly
    good at doing what's needed of it, which is supplying light of a good visual
    quality, in the quantities needed, exactly //when// and //where// it's
    needed ...

    Just as an additional aside, these things can also be sources of huge
    quantities of RF noise spanning great swathes of RF spectrum over
    significant physical distances, when they get old, or when the caps in the
    inverter start going bad.

    See - I told you that you shouldn't get me started on this one ... !! d:~}

    Arfa
     
  18. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    Since when ?

    It's the Australians doing that AIUI, not the EU.

    In any case both GE and Philips reckon they'll have halogen lamps operating at similar
    efficiencies to CFLs by around that time, so any ban on *incandescents* would be pure
    madness.

    A tax related to (in)efficiency might make some sense.

    Graham
     
  19. Ian Jackson

    Ian Jackson Guest

    If we end up with a ban on incandescent lamps and fluorescent lamps,
    we'll have to go back to burning whale oil.
    Ian.
    --
     
  20. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    Look again Graham. The EU - specifically Merkel - have signed up to the same
    thing as Aus is already doing ... There was a big article in the M.o.S. I
    think it was about 6 weeks ago. Look at

    http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...ews.html?in_article_id=441200&in_page_id=1811

    Arfa
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-