RohS lead free soldering

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
.....'son.....Your'e right....A No 8-9 PT Weller seems to be the only way forward....and far too hot for plastic cased components and I'm having to change tips quite regulary with Pb free. From what I've found, the soldering has to be done much quicker. I shall have to read up about the eutectic range....which I think is very narrow compared with traditional 60/40 solders.
The omens don't look good...I think I will buy up whatever 60/40 Rosin cored stock is about and make my best tube amp from it..

The finish with Pb free doesn't look shiny......in fact the temptation is to redo in thinking a dry joint has resulted.

If I'm right about the wetting not being so good as conventional solders, I presume in mass consumer equipment the risks in oxidised dry joints will be ever greater. Perhaps a comment to alay my pessimism. No equipment manufacturer has ever mentioned equipment guarantees ? or simply bin-it.

richj
 
over 800*F, solder tips tend to eat themselves with oxidation. If you have an adjustable station, turn it down between joints. If your station heats very quickly, consider turning if off entirely. Always keeping a little solder on the tip (not wiping it off) when it's in the holder is a good idea to prevent the oxidation going nuts.
 
I only got a few meters sample of lead-free solder from my supplier so far. I don't know the exact type, but it worked just like usual solder. And by usual i mean 60/36/4 Ag. The resulting joints were shiny and looked right too. So it IS possible to get a good result from lead-free.

I will check tomorrow the brand and type, and post here.
 
That would be great if you could Lars, I'm sure many of us would be grateful for a trusted type to try.

When I went on the Naim factory tour I asked them about lead free soldering and what they thought about it (as it was a couple of years ago, just before the directives came in), and they said they had been lead free for a while. So it must be possible to achieve a good result.
 
Thanks Lars,

I too would very much like to know which type of solder you have. The stuff I'm using just now is 95.5/4/0.5 Sn/Ag/Cu. It works OK on small stuff, if the iron is kept very hot and the joint is done quickly, but on larger stuff such as crossover wiring, it's very difficult, even with a 50W temperature controlled solder station.

Graeme
 
richie00boy said:
When I went on the Naim factory tour I asked them about lead free soldering and what they thought about it (as it was a couple of years ago, just before the directives came in), and they said they had been lead free for a while. So it must be possible to achieve a good result.

Depends on your opinion of 'good result', all lead free joints look really poor, that's not to say they are, but they look very dull. There's no real problem using lead free solder, but you need a much higher temperature, and a temperature controlled iron is pretty well essential.

Like many others, I'm hoping to buy enough leaded solder to outlast me! :D
 
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


Here are the results i got from using Fluitin 1532 type SAC305. (Tin, Copper and 3.5% Silver).
The oversized joints are to blame on the use of a way too big tip.

Actually just a normal soldering iron was used.

As can be seen the joints are not so good looking as the normal ones, but the work is hazzle free, and the joints hold up nicely.

A nice detail: due to lead free / RoHS compliance the entire PCB is Gold plated! :cool:

All the best from

Lars
 
I'm always puzzled at how stupid all humans are.

We keep removing components like Pb from our products instead of modifying the consumer chain to avoid these products ending up in a dumpster after a year of use.

No matter if the components and the PCBs are Pb free. Most consumer electronics ends up resting in a dumpster and there are hundreds of other harmful components that will get corroded and will be absorbed by the soil, thus ending up in our drinking water and our vegetables anyway.

We don't need all that Pb-free non-sense stuff created by politicians and big companies trying to fool us into thinking that they really care about pollution (they care about profit only). What they really want with RoHS is both to put new stuff in the market (thus cuasing old stuff to end up in dumpsters) and to eliminate minor competitors not capable of fulfilling these rules.

What we need is a DUMPSTER-FREE system enforcing complete recovery of prime materials, and enforcing big companies to get rid of their products after the consumer discards them. Otherwise, in 50 years the only remaining sources of materials such as copper that we will have will be our dumpsters, and extraction is going to be quite costly.
 
Hi,

Here here,

But I propose we go further.

Let's promote repairable commodities, rather than dumping them.

This stupidity of charging the same for a minor component as the purchase cost of the whole item is ludicrous. All manufacturers should be forced to adopt an economic repairs policy and if need be a subsidised spare parts distribution system. This way a component could represent a fair proportion of the whole cost.

The manufacturers would not like this, they would have to reduce production by at least 75% because everything would last at least 4 times longer (just an estimate not a promise).
 
Big compaines spend BIG $ on both RoHS and PB free production.

Even though my company don't need to comply to the new standards we only produce stuff that comply.

I agree that "End of life treatment" is even more important, this is starting to be discussed but as a lot of manufactures use mixed technology, older products will not easily be reused.

Plastic parts are no longer painted at the local TV factory - this makes reuse of the plastic parts a lot easier. It's not much, but it's a start

\Jens
 
What they really want with RoHS is both to put new stuff in the market (thus cuasing old stuff to end up in dumpsters) and to eliminate minor competitors not capable of fulfilling these rules.

Being one of the smallest possible producers of technology, i can say it is fully possible to comply with RoHS and other necessary regulations. No need to fight reality ;)

In fact i promote designing RoHS and other regulations in from the beginning, and not as a band aid solution later on.

About consumer behavior, and preventing worn out stuff from ending up in dumpsters, i think this should be covered in the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) directive at least here in EU. You can view it here:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_037/l_03720030213en00240038.pdf

Another interesting angle on why it makes very good sense to remove lead from the production cycle:

The natural content of Lead in seawater is 30 kg per cubic kilometer, which is actually very low. For example there is 150 kg Mercury and more than 3 tonnes of Uranium naturally dispersed in the same amount of seawater.

You can see the composistion of seawater here: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm

The Earth has more than 1 billion cubic kilometers of seawater, so based on this you might find a ban on ocean dumping of nuclaer waste quite redundant instead. (There is more than 3 billion tonnes of Uranium already naturally occuring in seawater).

But we all know how harmful Lead can be, so if we can do without it, we should.

All the best from

Lars
 

Attachments

  • weee.jpg
    weee.jpg
    17.1 KB · Views: 369
I agree with Eva.......entirely. SInce I started this thread I knew it would end up political...so be it. , I'm not the type to put my head in a "green bucket". .....basically all bunkum. As Eva mentions quite correctly noting has really changed regarding contaminating the planet and lead has only recently been taken out of petrol after a century of use. >SO why the flap ?

My previous profession was a skilled welder. One doesn't require much imagination to all the chemicals one comes across and free-cutting steel (with 30% lead in it) and theorium is piled up on scrap heaps. As anyone taken any notice of this......Nup...

Paranoia? Most certainly.

I wonder what will be the next thing ? Taken the tin out of sardine tins?

Long live 60/40.

richj
 
richwalters said:
I'm still using my old supplies of 60Sn/40Pb........I'm somewhat disappointed with the flowing characteristics of the new fangled lead free type. Can anyone advise me on a good lead free make ?

richj

Rich

To answer your question..

Your observation has far less to do with the alloy constituents as it does flux.

At 183 C, lead/tin has been beat to death technology wise, we've had 2000 years experience making that work. Fluxes were designed to work that alloy, and they have been rather well developed.

Now, comes along all the no lead stuff. Everybody gets on the lead free bandwagon (I will not entertain discussion of the politics), and expects the same performance and characteristics.

Chief problem..temp. Lead free alloys for the most part are solid at 221 C, give or take. This means that the flux must activate at much higher temperatures than the old stuff.

You will find that flux will be the key. That, and surface prep.

Don't expect shiny surfaces..but they will flow, you just have to get used to new methods of soldering.

Cheers, John
 
The worst of all is that by removing lead and other components from electronic equipment we are indirectly accepting and encouraging dumpsters as a good way to dispose that equipment after use.

ROHS means DUMPSTER-READY for politicians and plain people.

Who said that electronics equipment could be constructed without employing harmful substances? It obviously can't.
 
Eva said:
I'm always puzzled at how stupid all humans are.
I am not. Puzzled, that is. Stupid, maybe..;)
Eva said:
What we need is a DUMPSTER-FREE system enforcing complete recovery of prime materials, and enforcing big companies to get rid of their products after the consumer discards them. Otherwise, in 50 years the only remaining sources of materials such as copper that we will have will be our dumpsters, and extraction is going to be quite costly.

Complete recovery of materials is rather expensive. Only when it is cheaper than using virgin materials will it be taken up.

Cheers, John
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.