RoHS Compliance

[ken]

It's strange, AFAIK we had three 'air quality action days' where I live in the last two years, and the EPA wants us to buy reformulated ethanol 'corn gas' and stop using house fireplaces and twocycle gas engines. I live in 'farm central', the middle of nowhere not L.A. or Mexico City. Those of you who live in areas where you don't worry about this yet are lucky, but they too will soon have to.

Anyway, lemme get this straight -

RoHS says we can't send pickups using lead solder to the EU. Fine. I have silver solder too. Now some of you have this WEEE that says that at the end of a product's lifespan, the product must be sent back to the OEM for 'recycling'. Now, since musical instruments have an average life of way over ten years, it is possible that we could try to get an exemption. Fine. I have never known in my life a musician to throw a pickup away anyway, but if I had to deal with the recycling, I can do this.

My question is... let's say that somebody simply throws away a pickup locally wherever he/she is. Under these laws, are we responsible as pickup makers for this? Can we be sued for somebody else's stupidity/laziness? There is real precedent actually... gun makers are being sued to punish them for the actions of criminal people using their own products which they made in a legal manner, and McDonald's fast food restaurants (among others) had lawsuit attempts because some people actually got fat from eating their products. Here in WI, USA the governor tried to sue all paint makers awhile back for damages for making lead house paint, which was once legal but now outlawed. The kicker was, he wanted to sue **EVERY** paint maker, even those companies that weren't even in existence yet when lead was federally outlawed in paints some 30 or more years ago!

What's my point?

No matter how you feel about these social issues, in the end we pickup makers are going to be directly affected by what happens to these other manufacturers. I know that the 'big boys' like McDonalds and Smith & Wesson can afford to defend themselves against these types of legislation, but we simply cannot. How can we protect ourselves? What is legal today may not be twenty years or more in the future.

Ken

[Joe Gwinn]

To who asked me the question - the solder joints are failing. I think the high heat is partially vaporizing the copper.

Twas me. More likely is that the copper in the thin wire is dissolving in the solder, removing enough of the wire to cause failure. We have seen this problem with ordinary solder: recall the long discussion about the proper soldering temperature, with one school of thought holding that 800 degrees F was too hot, even if it worked well for thermal stripping of magnet wire.

Anyway, there was a solder (and solder maker) called Save-a-Bit many years (decades?) ago. Their claim to fame was that by pre-saturating the solder with copper, they would reduce erosion of the soldering-iron tip. This all went bye-bye after the invention of iron-plated copper soldering-iron tips, as iron does not much dissolve in solder, even very hot solder.

This leads to an experiment: use an unplated copper tip, so the copper in the solder comes mostly from the soldering-iron tip, thus saving the wire. This may require one to file the tip to remove the iron plating, exposing the bare copper. Such tips will wear out quickly, but they don't cost all that much, and are needed only for this one step. So, run it hot enough that the solder joint is very quickly done. I would put some paste flux on the joint to be, feed some solder to the hot tip, so there is a little drip clinging to the bare copper. Then, touch the hot (and copper-saturated) solder to the fluxed joint. There should be a little puff of smoke as the wire is stripped and soldered. Remove tip from joint. Contact time is something like two seconds.

[soundmasterg]

Wolfe, are you still using a soldering gun rather than a soldering iron? Just wondering....


Greg

[WolfeMacleod]

Wolfe, are you still using a soldering gun rather than a soldering iron? Just wondering....


Greg

Yep. I like the gun. My assembly guy uses the adjustable iron. Too small and "penlike" for my hands...My hands cramp when I write, and so when I use the iron too.

[David Schwab]

Be careful with having a soldering gun around magnets. They generate a magnetic field at the tip and I've read they can demagnetize magnets. The literature that came with my old Hi-A pickup cautioned about using a soldering gun with the pickup.

[soundmasterg]

Have you been getting coil failures with the new solder with the gun soldered coils and the pen soldered coils Wolfe? Wondering if the gun could be the culprit....

[Tom Phillips]

Below is a snipit I saved that was originally submitted by Martin Mayer to ""Bob's Mailbox" IN Electronic Design magazine 9/14/06.
The IA-423 solder formulation sounds interesting. My initial investigation turned up one audiophyle source selling it for a high price in small quantities. That seller, of course, had the usual audiophyle WA clames.



Snipit:

"We have tried several "new solder formulations that comply with RoHS and WEEE directives. The best replacement, from specifications and performance,-is the IA-423 formulation (Sn/Ag4.7/Cu1.7), which is eutectic like Sn/Pb37, and makes a nice clean-looking joint provided sufficient flux is used. This solder requires a nominal (10°C) increase in tip temperature or increased tip-contact time. Also working well is Kester's Sn/Ag3/Cu0.5 formulation. Although non-eutectic, this solder "wets" later than its leaded predecessors and flows through holes better than any leaded solder we've used. Final finish is not nearly as "cold looking" as some others. Both of these formulations work very well for hot air rework and assembly of surface-mount devices, which is even more critical than through-hole these days. It is worth noting that the IA-423 formulation falls under patent 5,527,628 (July 1993, USA Only), which covers the joints produced (SN/Ag3.5-7.7/Cu1.0-4.0), and the Kester formulation is patented (JP 50 50 289, March 1993). Non-patented alloys, such as Stannol TC (Sn/Cu1.0), produce a confusing, inferior looking "cold" final finish. Perhaps there is some patent paranoia that is holding the lead-free world away from these quite usable alloys."


I'd like to hear about it if anyone has information about IA-123 solder.


Tom

[Alex/Tubewonder]

It looks like a good formula but they don't make solder wire with flux core so you have to apply flux externally. Messy.

[Tom Phillips]

No flux core? I didn't pick up on that. Hopefully, there will be more options in the near future.

[WolfeMacleod]

Have you been getting coil failures with the new solder with the gun soldered coils and the pen soldered coils Wolfe? Wondering if the gun could be the culprit....

Both iron and gun.

[David King]

It's a bit amusing to see how we all react to the RoHS issue. Nobody likes change I guess... I switched to leadfree solder a couple of months ago and have hardly noticed a difference except that I don't have to clean oxidation off the tip as often and my joints look a whole lot better. The solder is stiffer and you need to keep your tip tinned or the stuff just won't melt. This is just good soldering technique. I definitely crank the temp up to 11 when I'm soldering to the back of pots but that's just another reason NOT to solder to the backs of pots, ground pots via a washer and leave the cases alone -you'll experience a much lower failure rate of the pots.

I got MG Chemicals Cat No. 4900-1125 Rohs compliant lead free solder at the local Fry's, $8 for a 1/4 LB spool. It comes with a flux that doesn't affect my eyes and nose the way rosin core did. I can't say I've soldered any pickups leads and all my hookup wire is milspec 19 strand silver plated copper with teflon jacket. I'm sure that makes things a little easier.

Obviously we don't need to comply in the states but I couldn't think of a good reason not to try. Rohs will undoubted arrive on this shore someday, meanwhile now is a good time to dump all your contaminated, non-complient components on Ebay while they are still worth something and before you have to pay someone to get rid of them for you.

If anyone is interested in reading about RoHS in English, try http://www.rohs.gov.uk/

[Pep]

Guys, I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but I have heard an increasing amount of rumors that the US is not that far behind in adopting some of this. It's pretty damn serious stuff because a lot of manufactures have already gone under in EU due to these restrictions. God save us all.

[ken]

I spent the last few days studying RoHS too.

Here is the URL for the 'Decision Tree' flowchart from the RoHS website,
http://www.rohs.gov.uk/DecisionTree.aspx

The following are snips from the URL above.

I just love this part that I got from the RoHS website, it really sounds like a loophole for anyone making acoustic/electric guitar pickups to me -

/snip
The directive does not apply to products that can still fulfil their main purpose without electricity. The example of this given by the Commission is the talking teddy bear that is still a teddy bear and can fulfil its main purpose as a comfort toy in the eyes of a child with the batteries removed.

Therefore, can it not be said that since the guitar does not actually need the pickup to fulfill its function, any pickup sold as part of that same guitar should not be covered?

Also, here is a loophole that may cover our pickups...

Spare parts for repair of products placed on the market before 1 July 2006 are exempt from the requirements of RoHS. The EC's 'Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach' (the 'blue book') available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newap...uide/index.htm describes repairs on page 16 as “without changing the original performance, purpose or type” and “…replacing a defective or worn item by a spare part, which either is identical, or at least similar, to the original spare part (for example modifications may have taken place due to technical progress, or discontinued production of the old part). Thus, maintenance operations are basically excluded from the scope of the directives”. Therefore a product first placed on the market before 1 July 2006 that is subsequently modified (changing its function, performance or type) by the use of spare parts may be deemed a new product and need to comply.

However, in the case of the RoHS Directive, because extending product life is considered to have a positive environmental impact, modification of a product to enhance its function and therefore extend its life are excluded.


Pep - you may be right, too...

/snip
It's pretty damn serious stuff because a lot of manufactures have already gone under in EU due to these restrictions. God save us all.

Maybe it's my paranoia gland in hyperdrive, but wouldn't lots of small companies dying that can't comply with RoHS for some reason or another be really good news for the bigger ones who can? Hmmmm, could be....

Ken

[Mark Hammer]

The irony of the RoHS concerns/standards become apparent in the content of Wolfe's note (well-drafted, incidentally).

At least part of the drive towards RoHS is spurred by the potential impact of the mountains of "throwaway consumer technology" ending up in garbage heaps or recycled for usable noble metals and such, often in developing nations that have lax environmental standards. The thought of all that lead entering the food chain or water system, simply because of the endless hunger for the next consumer toy, or because products like toasters and coffee-makers are produced under the assumption of a very short life-expectancy, is a bit too much to bear, so lead is moved out of those products for human environmental safety purposes. Makes perfect sense.

As Wolfe notes, though, not only is the amount of lead small, but the intent of his products, and the intent/expectation of his customers, is that the pickup will endure and be in active service for a MUCH longer time than virtually any piece of consumer electronics the RoHS people had in mind when the standards were drafted. In the grand scheme of things, the total amount of lead contributed to the environment if he continued using lead solder, would pale against the *trace* amounts of lead found in all those RoHS compliant $29 DVD players that will fall prey to mechanical breakdown and form a worldwide garbage mountain as big as the Sears tower a mere 5 years from now.

A key element in all of this is that more waste metals are entered into the global garbage heap by shortening the lifespan of the product than by extending it. I'm generally on board for environmental controls, but this one makes me scrunch up my face.

[Alex/Tubewonder]

Somebody has to play the devils advocate. What about cheap far east imports? I am concerned with all those "guitar+amp" kits costing less than a quality handwound pickup. These sell to a mass market and end up in a garbage can after, what - about a year or two? In ROHS sense a pickup is a pickup is a pickup. I think it's time to stop complaining and face reality. ROHS is here and will soon be in US too. After all it's not something that somebody came up with over one night, it took a couple of years to work out and was not kept secret from the public during the process.

I wonder if spot bonding the magnet wire could work ?