Swatch Group Granted Lead Exemption?????

Stephen,

This is brilliant!! Sorry my elevator is a little slow on Fridays

reply »

This does not make any sense at all. 0.65mm is 25 mil pitch. I could make all of my products exempt by putting a .025" pitch component on them and what is the downside? Absolutely nothing at all. Just put an 8 pin 0.025" pitch or less device in place of the 0.050" pitch 8 pin device. 0.020 pitch is too easy. Why isn't everyone going this route to avoid RoHS?

Chris

reply »

I want to say one more thing on this; many times RoHS is compared to the CFC elimination. But there is a huge difference between the two for following reasons:

In late 80�s scientific evidence became available that CFC�s contributed greatly to the ozone destructions in the upper atmosphere. Environmental agencies were made aware of this danger and they encouraged the technical community to look for alternatives or different technologies. The big difference Between RoHS and CFC elimination is:

A) CFC�s: Scientific evidence was available that CFC�s were harmful to the environment. RoHS: No scientific evidence that lead in solders is harmful to our environment. US EPA and University of Stuttgart reported that alternatives to lead in solders are a bigger burden on the environment than lead.

B) CFC: Elimination of CFC�s was a global effort and all industries that used CFC�s were encouraged to look for alternative technologies including but not limited to the electronics industry. RoHS: Only one country the EU is banning lead in solders under RoHS directive and one industry is targeted �the electronics industry� all other countries encourage WEEE (recycling).

C) CFC�s: CFC elimination was never written into law because better and more economic technologies became available before the target date the Montreal protocol had set. RoHS: Became law (in the EU) July 2006 on 6 substances without proven reliable, more economic or alternatives better to the environment.

D) CFC�s: No exemptions ever had to be granted because it never became law. Companies who wanted to use CFC�s could do so, they just missed out on the benefits the new technologies had to bring and CFC�s became very expensive due to the (at the time) decreasing amount of producers. RoHS: Many exempts are still pending for the simple reason that no alternatives to the 6 substances are either proven reliable, work as well as the product it replaces, or are proven better for the environment.

The bottom line is CFC elimination has encouraged new technology such as No-Clean/No-Residue soldering eliminating cleaning and post assembly. RoHS is bringing chaos, additional cost and no improvements to either process or environment.

I can keep on going but as much as a promoter I was to eliminate CFC�s, as much as an opponent I am in banning lead in solders for no good reason (if it�s not better why using it?).

This time the green flag is used and abused, not for a better environment or more effective manufacturing, but for other reasons of which I don�t want to be part of.

Patrick

reply »

Hi,

The verbiage states lead finish on components and not solder used in assembly. I have found nothing that states that Swatch got an exemption. Although the 650 micron pitch spec seems to have come from the data Swatch presented in their execption request. I agree that soldering with SAC alloy to Sn/Pb plated parts makes little sense. It could very well be that Swatch is soldering with Sn/Pb solder and that every watch they make is well below 650 micron pitch. This 650 micron pitch exemption certainly protects the component manufacturer from tin whiskers but may not protect the assembler. Tin whiskers right out of the tape or the tray, before assembly, would be a serious problem for the component manufacturer.

If the facts are that 650 micron pitch and below components can be solder using Sn/Pb solder, these trade rags would be all over this. 650 micron pitch and below is just too common. If Swatch has such an exemption, RoHS and lead free has received a serious boot to the skull.

I started this discussion because many at my company read it as 650 micron pitch assembly made us exempt. Does it? I need to see it written specifically stating assembly of 650 micron pitch and below can be performed with Sn/Pb solder.

I will see if I can email some of my former coworkers that work in these huge contract houses.

Chris

reply »

Here�s the link to the exempt request, the exempt is for �solder paste� nothing is stated about plating.

http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/dir_2002_95/library?l=/requests_exempions/resonator_electronics/a-1018_swatchpdf/_IT_1.0_&a=d

If you want to hear from them what paste they are using and exempt status email info@swatchgroup.com ATT: Jennifer Kluge

Patrick

reply »