EU lead-free directive

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:
[...]

> 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....
> 

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

> 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.

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,

>> A really stupid regulation, given the huge amount of lead used in car
>> batteries for example....
> 
> Not really, considering the usually responsible way used up batteries are
> dealt with, and the usually convenient way used up electronics are dealt
> with.

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

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

GMM50 wrote:
> 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
> 

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.

-- 
Luhan Monat: luhanis(at)yahoo(dot)com
http://members.cox.net/berniekm
"Any sufficiently advanced magick is
indistinguishable from technology."

On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:43:25 +0100, z180@nospam24.com (Peter) wrote:

>Hi,
>
>This comes in mid-2006 and AIUI requires that lead content is below
>0.1%.
>
>Surely, one could achieve this by making the overall product heavier?
>
>Or does it work on a per-circuit-board basis? In that case, the lead
>in standard solder will probably weigh more than 0.1% of the weight of
>the populated PCB....
>
>This could be a serious problem for any company that is slowly running
>down a stock of old chips. These won't be lead-free, and neither will
>be any chips purchased from the many used chip vendors who pass on
>surplus stock. I expect a lot of their business will dry up since many
>companies are requiring *zero* lead content on *all* components.
>
>Any views?

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,

> Homogenous was defined as any material that canot be mechanically
> divided.

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

http://www.analogconsultants.com

"Luhan Monat" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:jP3ne.1624$Pp.651@fed1read01...
> GMM50 wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> 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,

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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:36:21 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
<tim_in_sweden2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Luhan Monat" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:jP3ne.1624$Pp.651@fed1read01...
>> GMM50 wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> 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,
>
>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.  

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

>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
>
>

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

                                        ...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.