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?http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_037/l_03720030213en00190023.pdf |3. This Directive does not apply to spare parts for the repair, |or to the reuse, of electrical and electronic equipment put on |the market before 1 July 2006. So that would seem to cover stocks of old chips. IC manufacturers are going to need to be lead-free after July 2006, for Euro sales, but 'put on the market' would seem to cover anything made/invoiced prior to that ? and there are more exemptions here : |(11) Exemptions from the substitution requirement should be |permitted if substitution is not possible from the scientific |and technical point of view or if the negative environmental |or health impacts caused by substitution are |likely to outweigh the human and environmental benefits |of the substitution. Substitution of the hazardous |substances in electrical and electronic equipment should |also be carried out in a way so as to be compatible with |the health and safety of users of electrical and electronic |equipment (EEE). |7. � Lead in high melting temperature type solders (i.e. tin-lead |solder alloys containing more than 85 % lead), |� lead in solders for servers, storage and storage array systems |(exemption granted until 2010), |� lead in solders for network infrastructure equipment for switching, |signalling, transmission as well as network |management for telecommunication, |� lead in electronic ceramic parts (e.g. piezoelectronic devices). The target is mainly the high volume/short life/disposable consumer products, (rightly so). It seems other large industry groups have lobbied for exemptions... -jg
EU lead-free directive
Started by ●May 31, 2005
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:50:00 -0700, Luhan Monat wrote:> Joerg wrote: >> Hello Luhan, >> >>>> I believe it's not "and a PE" but "or a PE". Meaning that people who >>>> work in med may be better off without PE since you can't get >>>> insurance anymore. >>> >>> >>> In this case, I was hired as an electronics engineer. The guy I >>> worked for had a PHD in biomedical engineering (or some such thing). >>> Therefor, I was not the 'medical' professional on the project. >> >> >> The academic title isn't too important. What counts is who called the >> shots. With a PE that can be different because they can stamp and seal. >> Doing that on any piece of documentation carries a great responsibility. >> Then again, so does the action of any engineer who is bound by the IEEE >> code of ethics (but that doesn't count in a legal sense). >> >> Regards, Joerg >> >> http://www.analogconsultants.com > > IEEE code of ethics? I'll just have to look that one up. Basically, if > a client wanted a 'marital aid' with 'midi in', I would just quote > them the cost to make a 'working prototype'.Of course, as part of the fee, you'd demonstrate the 'instrument'? -- Keith
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:11:21 +0000, Joerg wrote:> Hello Luhan, > >>> In the US maybe, but this thread is about the EU (or so it says) >> >> Threads have a way of wandering around, from my recent experience here. > > Look on the bright side: At least it hasn't degenerated into a political > shoot-out. Even though the recent voting results on the EU constitution, > ... uhm, let's not go there...Ok, it fair to shoot your mouth off at left-pondia's politics, but not the other way? Gotcha. <though there is really nothing to say - frogs and all> -- Keith
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
Hello Keith,> Ok, it fair to shoot your mouth off at left-pondia's politics, but not the > other way? Gotcha. <though there is really nothing to say - frogs and > all>Well, I try to stay out of political dicussions on Usenet. At the local pub that's a different matter (but I'll listen to the other side). Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:15:22 +0000, Joerg wrote:> Hello Keith, > >> Ok, it fair to shoot your mouth off at left-pondia's politics, but not the >> other way? Gotcha. <though there is really nothing to say - frogs and >> all> > > Well, I try to stay out of political dicussions on Usenet. At the local > pub that's a different matter (but I'll listen to the other side). >Well, I think we all pretty much know the drill - "They" are ignorant dupes, and "We" are the custodians of Truth. ;-P -- Cheers! Rich ------ "Hickory Dickory Dock, Three mice ran up a clock! The clock struck one, Right in the balls! There was an old woman, Who lived in a shoe, Who had so many children, Her uterus fell right out."
Reply by ●June 1, 20052005-06-01
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:15:22 +0000, Joerg wrote:> Hello Keith, > >> Ok, it fair to shoot your mouth off at left-pondia's politics, but not the >> other way? Gotcha. <though there is really nothing to say - frogs and >> all> > > Well, I try to stay out of political dicussions on Usenet. At the local > pub that's a different matter (but I'll listen to the other side).You brought the issue up. I, for one, was willing to leave it lie. -- Keith
Reply by ●June 1, 20052005-06-01
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:52:38 +0000, Rich The Newsgroup Wacko wrote:> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:15:22 +0000, Joerg wrote: > >> Hello Keith, >> >>> Ok, it fair to shoot your mouth off at left-pondia's politics, but not the >>> other way? Gotcha. <though there is really nothing to say - frogs and >>> all> >> >> Well, I try to stay out of political dicussions on Usenet. At the local >> pub that's a different matter (but I'll listen to the other side). >> > > Well, I think we all pretty much know the drill - "They" are ignorant > dupes, and "We" are the custodians of Truth. ;-PThat's why you kill-file anyone who disagrees with you, while polluting this group with hundreds (google counts 8780 with author= rich*) you don't have to see your silly face in a mirror. What a frrappin' maroon! -- Keith
Reply by ●June 1, 20052005-06-01
Joerg wrote:> 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.comSo your point is: a) Lead batteries should be highly regulated b) Since lead batteries are the worst lead offenders by an order of magnitude, all other lead regulation is pointless c) Something else Note, I'm not supporting or denigrating any point.
Reply by ●June 1, 20052005-06-01
tim (moved to sweden) wrote:> "Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message > news:hqmp91l5obd16ia0or4121agm4b3km9joo@4ax.com... >[...]>>> >>>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. > > > In the US maybe, but this thread is about the EU (or so it says) > > tim > >Or if you want to sell into (what was to have been) the EU, maybe this is topical.
Reply by ●June 1, 20052005-06-01
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message news:v6SdnRACzYGLdwHfRVn-ow@adelphia.com...>What do you make of:> http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_037/l_03720030213en00190023.pdf> "Applications of lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, which are > exempted from the requirements of Article 4(1)... > 7. � Lead in high melting temperature type solders (i.e. tin-lead solder > alloys containing more than 85 % lead)"Well, I make that one more reason to vote "NO" on the European constitution today... Thanks for pointing that out. Rob
