Paul Burke wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> > I suspect that those countries that get a vote on the proposed
> > constitution are in reality expressing their distaste for things such as
> > the Brussels bureacrats. About time too.
>
> Talking of which, the Euro parliament is voting on software patents next
> week. The commission (the Jacques-in-office) tried to railroad it
> through unexamined a few months ago, attached at the last moment to some
> minor agricultural diktat, sadly for them someone spotted it.

Aren't they always trying to pull a fast one ?

Time for *real* Europeans to claim back their future !

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

> I suspect that those countries that get a vote on the proposed
> constitution are in reality expressing their distaste for things such as
> the Brussels bureacrats. About time too.

Talking of which, the Euro parliament is voting on software patents next 
week. The commission (the Jacques-in-office) tried to railroad it 
through unexamined a few months ago, attached at the last moment to some 
minor agricultural diktat, sadly for them someone spotted it.

Paul Burke

Jim Thompson wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:11:58 +0100, Peter <nospam@nospam9876.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote
> >
> >>Sort of a moot issue isn't it?
> >>
> >>The Dutch just voted down the EU Constitution.
> >
> >Does that make ROHS dead?
>
> The Europeon bureaucracy is alive and well, and running at maximum
> damage infliction ;-)
>
>                                         ...Jim Thompson

I suspect that those countries that get a vote on the proposed
constitution are in reality expressing their distaste for things such as
the Brussels bureacrats. About time too.

Graham

R.Lewis wrote:


> Are you aware, for example, of the sulphur content on the cardboard boxes in
> which you hope to keep these parts, and its diffusion rate through the
> primary packaging materials?
> How are you going to verify the product integrity/reliabilty etc.

In my opinion, there are 2 kinds of engineers in the world.
Those that worry about sulfur content of packaging,
ant those that design useful products.

"Peter" <nospam@nospam9876.com> wrote in message
news:dcsba1thq4qkjihs6h8ftuv7k56okk9sf4@4ax.com...
>
> Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote
>
> >|(11) Exemptions from the substitution requirement should be
> >|permitted if substitution is not possible from the scientific
> >|and technical point of view
>
> Let's look at this one.
>
> Let's say I am buying a microcontroller, which is not in a lead-free
> package; it's a very old design and is approaching a last time buy. In
> fact, I've had to buy the last few k from the cowboy dealers who buy
> up old stocks.
>
> It would take about 1 man-year of work to redesign the product with a
> different micro.
>
> I am planning to buy up a LOT of old stock of this chip; enough to
> last me about 10 years, because I don't have the resources to re-do
> what's in it, and also because what's in it is of very high quality
> (zero bugs discovered in > 10 years). This product has a very long
> life.
>
> Does that mean I am exempt? It says "is not possible". But surely
> anything is "possible". One can put a man on the moon.
>
> The more practical problem is that my customers are continually asking
> me for an ROHS statement. I just say we will be compliant by July
> 2006. After that, I might be telling a lie. Presumably, everybody else
> will have to do the same - even those who are relying on clear and
> genuine exemptions - because few of their customers will be interested
> in the fine print; they just want a simple compliance statement.
>

Please let us know of your product.
I do not want to be one of the suckers conned into buying, as new, something
with maybe up to 20 year old parts in it.

Are you aware, for example, of the sulphur content on the cardboard boxes in
which you hope to keep these parts, and its diffusion rate through the
primary packaging materials?
How are you going to verify the product integrity/reliabilty etc.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:11:58 +0100, Peter <nospam@nospam9876.com>
wrote:

>
>Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote
>
>>Sort of a moot issue isn't it?  
>>
>>The Dutch just voted down the EU Constitution.
>
>Does that make ROHS dead?

The Europeon bureaucracy is alive and well, and running at maximum
damage infliction ;-)

                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote

>|(11) Exemptions from the substitution requirement should be
>|permitted if substitution is not possible from the scientific
>|and technical point of view 

Let's look at this one.

Let's say I am buying a microcontroller, which is not in a lead-free
package; it's a very old design and is approaching a last time buy. In
fact, I've had to buy the last few k from the cowboy dealers who buy
up old stocks.

It would take about 1 man-year of work to redesign the product with a
different micro.

I am planning to buy up a LOT of old stock of this chip; enough to
last me about 10 years, because I don't have the resources to re-do
what's in it, and also because what's in it is of very high quality
(zero bugs discovered in > 10 years). This product has a very long
life.

Does that mean I am exempt? It says "is not possible". But surely
anything is "possible". One can put a man on the moon.

The more practical problem is that my customers are continually asking
me for an ROHS statement. I just say we will be compliant by July
2006. After that, I might be telling a lie. Presumably, everybody else
will have to do the same - even those who are relying on clear and
genuine exemptions - because few of their customers will be interested
in the fine print; they just want a simple compliance statement.

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote

>Sort of a moot issue isn't it?  
>
>The Dutch just voted down the EU Constitution.

Does that make ROHS dead?

Pooh Bear wrote:

> I was however quite impressed that when I once needed to - I was able to get a 'next day' passport by going to one of the Passport Offices ( London was the
> nearest to me ) in person at no extra cost IIRC..

Them was the days. I had to get one for Idiot Daughter last easter. The 
quick passport now costs twice an ordinary one. Plus driving to 
Liverpool, good job someone else had the hubcaps first...

Paul Burke

Hello Spehro,

> Yup, one of the irritating things for people who move from such places
> to more "civilized" countries is that you often *can't* speed things
> up by paying what is usually a pittance more. The civil servants are
> unionized, relatively well paid and generally incorruptable. 

Usually but not always. This morning's paper in Sacramento reported 
about one public servant who is going to "Club Fed" for six months.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com