Today I got this in Altera's email newsletter Get RoHS Compliant with Altera FPGAs, CPLDs and Structured ASICs I have never seen a single 3000 series PLD available in leadfree that you could actually purchase for delivery from stock. I have been able to buy lead versions of most of this family without too much trouble. I managed to buy a small number of leadfree Max II parts that are on allocation. I think the current delivery is something like 14 weeks (about when we are all supposed to be RoHS compliant). I guess I found this ad a bit ironic since we have all known that RoHS was coming for a long time and Altera is bragging in their ads that they have been shipping RoHS compliant devices for a long time. I guess this must not include their distributors...... I hate the RoHS requirements, but like nearly everyone else, we are working to comply. It doesn't help when the manufacturers are at least a year late in the transition process. Thanks for listening to my rant..... -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Altera RoHS Irony
Started by ●February 13, 2006
Reply by ●February 13, 20062006-02-13
Al Clark wrote:> Today I got this in Altera's email newsletter > > Get RoHS Compliant with Altera FPGAs, CPLDs and Structured ASICs > > I have never seen a single 3000 series PLD available in leadfree that you > could actually purchase for delivery from stock. I have been able to buy > lead versions of most of this family without too much trouble. > > I managed to buy a small number of leadfree Max II parts that are on > allocation. > > I think the current delivery is something like 14 weeks (about when we are > all supposed to be RoHS compliant). > > I guess I found this ad a bit ironic since we have all known that RoHS was > coming for a long time and Altera is bragging in their ads that they have > been shipping RoHS compliant devices for a long time. I guess this must not > include their distributors...... > > I hate the RoHS requirements, but like nearly everyone else, we are working > to comply. It doesn't help when the manufacturers are at least a year late > in the transition process. > > Thanks for listening to my rant.....Think this is bad - just wait for the stock write-downs, as massive inventories of Lead based parts suddenly go past a 'use by' date... -jg
Reply by ●February 13, 20062006-02-13
Anyone familiar with the reasoning behind the lead restrictions? There hasn't been any publicity excepting the compounds that are poison when eaten and those that are poison in the blood stream. Are there others? Hul Al Clark <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote:> Today I got this in Altera's email newsletter> Get RoHS Compliant with Altera FPGAs, CPLDs and Structured ASICs> I have never seen a single 3000 series PLD available in leadfree that you > could actually purchase for delivery from stock. I have been able to buy > lead versions of most of this family without too much trouble.> I managed to buy a small number of leadfree Max II parts that are on > allocation.> I think the current delivery is something like 14 weeks (about when we are > all supposed to be RoHS compliant).> I guess I found this ad a bit ironic since we have all known that RoHS was > coming for a long time and Altera is bragging in their ads that they have > been shipping RoHS compliant devices for a long time. I guess this must not > include their distributors......> I hate the RoHS requirements, but like nearly everyone else, we are working > to comply. It doesn't help when the manufacturers are at least a year late > in the transition process.> Thanks for listening to my rant.....> -- > Al Clark > Danville Signal Processing, Inc. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff > Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Reply by ●February 13, 20062006-02-13
I'm not sure what you mean. Lead is a heavy metal that causes many problems including permanent damage to the central nervous system. That is why lead is no longer in gasoline or paint. The lead in electronics ends up in landfills which at some point will end up in our water and food chain. Yes, we take great "precautions" to keep landfills intact and away from our water sources, but they all leak and some leak a lot. Eventually they will all be sources of significant contamination of our environment if they contain long term polutants like lead. That is it in a nutshell. If we continue to concentrate dangerous polutants by putting them in products and then bury them in our back yards, we will never have an even remotely clean environment. Hul Tytus wrote:> Anyone familiar with the reasoning behind the lead restrictions? There > hasn't been any publicity excepting the compounds that are poison when > eaten and those that are poison in the blood stream. Are there others? > > Hul > > Al Clark <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote: > > Today I got this in Altera's email newsletter > > > Get RoHS Compliant with Altera FPGAs, CPLDs and Structured ASICs > > > I have never seen a single 3000 series PLD available in leadfree that you > > could actually purchase for delivery from stock. I have been able to buy > > lead versions of most of this family without too much trouble. > > > I managed to buy a small number of leadfree Max II parts that are on > > allocation. > > > I think the current delivery is something like 14 weeks (about when we are > > all supposed to be RoHS compliant). > > > I guess I found this ad a bit ironic since we have all known that RoHS was > > coming for a long time and Altera is bragging in their ads that they have > > been shipping RoHS compliant devices for a long time. I guess this must not > > include their distributors...... > > > I hate the RoHS requirements, but like nearly everyone else, we are working > > to comply. It doesn't help when the manufacturers are at least a year late > > in the transition process. > > > Thanks for listening to my rant..... > > > > > -- > > Al Clark > > Danville Signal Processing, Inc. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff > > Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Reply by ●February 14, 20062006-02-14
rickman wrote:> I'm not sure what you mean. Lead is a heavy metal that causes many > problems including permanent damage to the central nervous system. > That is why lead is no longer in gasoline or paint. The lead in > electronics ends up in landfills which at some point will end up in our > water and food chain. Yes, we take great "precautions" to keep > landfills intact and away from our water sources, but they all leak and > some leak a lot. Eventually they will all be sources of significant > contamination of our environment if they contain long term polutants > like lead. > > That is it in a nutshell. If we continue to concentrate dangerous > polutants by putting them in products and then bury them in our back > yards, we will never have an even remotely clean environment. >It's also worth pointing out that although people use the term "lead free", that's only a part of RoHS and similar directives. There are a number of other metals and chemicals banned or limited by RoHS which are more poisonous than lead, although they are lower volumes in electronics. The theory is nice - it's a step towards being a bit more environmentally friendly. The implementation is a lot more questionable "let's set some rules, and a deadline with plenty of time, and 'market forces' will find a solution". It would have been far better to have graduated commercial incentives - start with grants for companies willing to switch over early as "prototypes" for the industry, and then move to gradually increasing taxes on leaded components and electronics until everyone has switched over.> > Hul Tytus wrote: >> Anyone familiar with the reasoning behind the lead restrictions? There >> hasn't been any publicity excepting the compounds that are poison when >> eaten and those that are poison in the blood stream. Are there others? >> >> Hul >> >> Al Clark <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote: >>> Today I got this in Altera's email newsletter >>> Get RoHS Compliant with Altera FPGAs, CPLDs and Structured ASICs >>> I have never seen a single 3000 series PLD available in leadfree that you >>> could actually purchase for delivery from stock. I have been able to buy >>> lead versions of most of this family without too much trouble. >>> I managed to buy a small number of leadfree Max II parts that are on >>> allocation. >>> I think the current delivery is something like 14 weeks (about when we are >>> all supposed to be RoHS compliant). >>> I guess I found this ad a bit ironic since we have all known that RoHS was >>> coming for a long time and Altera is bragging in their ads that they have >>> been shipping RoHS compliant devices for a long time. I guess this must not >>> include their distributors...... >>> I hate the RoHS requirements, but like nearly everyone else, we are working >>> to comply. It doesn't help when the manufacturers are at least a year late >>> in the transition process. >>> Thanks for listening to my rant..... >> >> >>> -- >>> Al Clark >>> Danville Signal Processing, Inc. >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff >>> Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com >
Reply by ●February 14, 20062006-02-14
Good point. I am working on a project that needs to meet the RoHS standards and one of the parts from our existing product that we can't use are kapton flex circuits. I have no idea why kapton is on the list of banned items. Does it have to do with the way it is made? David Brown wrote:> It's also worth pointing out that although people use the term "lead > free", that's only a part of RoHS and similar directives. There are a > number of other metals and chemicals banned or limited by RoHS which are > more poisonous than lead, although they are lower volumes in electronics. > > The theory is nice - it's a step towards being a bit more > environmentally friendly. The implementation is a lot more questionable > "let's set some rules, and a deadline with plenty of time, and 'market > forces' will find a solution". It would have been far better to have > graduated commercial incentives - start with grants for companies > willing to switch over early as "prototypes" for the industry, and then > move to gradually increasing taxes on leaded components and electronics > until everyone has switched over.I agree that it would have been better to phase in the process, but that would still have been painful and a LOT more work to manage.
Reply by ●February 14, 20062006-02-14
"rickman" <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1139919710.627526.242240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:> Good point. I am working on a project that needs to meet the RoHS > standards and one of the parts from our existing product that we can't > use are kapton flex circuits. I have no idea why kapton is on the > list of banned items. Does it have to do with the way it is made? > > David Brown wrote: >> It's also worth pointing out that although people use the term "lead >> free", that's only a part of RoHS and similar directives. There are >> a number of other metals and chemicals banned or limited by RoHS >> which are more poisonous than lead, although they are lower volumes >> in electronics. >> >> The theory is nice - it's a step towards being a bit more >> environmentally friendly. The implementation is a lot more >> questionable "let's set some rules, and a deadline with plenty of >> time, and 'market forces' will find a solution". It would have been >> far better to have graduated commercial incentives - start with >> grants for companies willing to switch over early as "prototypes" for >> the industry, and then move to gradually increasing taxes on leaded >> components and electronics until everyone has switched over. > > I agree that it would have been better to phase in the process, but > that would still have been painful and a LOT more work to manage. > >I think the biggest problem with the mandates is that it mostly and all or nothing proposition. If the board didn't use lead solder, this would reduce most of the lead content on a typical board. It would be very easy to make a board that reduces its lead content by 90% without much impact on existing inventories and designs. The biggest problem is caused by the few parts that are not readily available (in theory or otherwise) that cause the board to be almost but not quite RoHS compliant. I brought up the Altera parts as an example since many of the people in this group might have exactly the same problem. If I use an Altera PLD which I have (and can still buy), that is not leadfree, my board will not be RoHS compliant. I also wonder what they expect us to do with all of our inventory. The big problem is that the manufacturers of the parts needed to be completely RoHS compliant at least a year or maybe even two years ago, so that the distributors could turn their stock and then endusers like most of us could turn our stock. I was seeing passives that were still non RoHS as late as Fall 2005. In some cases, I use one resistor of a reel per run. It takes a long time to burn 5000 parts for some of us. I had a connector manuafacturer tell me that the 5 cent connector I buy from them is not RoHS but that I could get it RoHS if I bought 20000 pieces. I use about 3000/year. Sometimes, I think that the Europeans think that all products are like consumer items that have a product life of a few months or maybe a year (like a PC or cell phone). I have already seen many products being redesigned simply because a key part will not be available in a RoHS compliant package (and would have been otherwise). The manufacturer decides that the part volume isn't worth the effort to modify so they kill it instead. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Reply by ●February 14, 20062006-02-14
> Sometimes, I think that the Europeans think that all products are like > consumer items that have a product life of a few months or maybe a year > (like a PC or cell phone).Al, Please don't tarr us all with the European 'politician's brush, they just _don't_ think. A couple of weeks ago someone on sci.electronics.design (I think) posted a link to a presentation that quoted TI's figures, that a worldwide conversion to lead free packages would save about the same amount of lead as in TEN car batteries. The european parliament is a complete waste of time and a huge waste of money. Nial.
Reply by ●February 14, 20062006-02-14
"Nial Stewart" <nial@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote in news:45eg2iF6cp26U1@individual.net:>> Sometimes, I think that the Europeans think that all products are >> like consumer items that have a product life of a few months or maybe >> a year (like a PC or cell phone). > > > Al, > > Please don't tarr us all with the European 'politician's brush, they > just _don't_ think. > > A couple of weeks ago someone on sci.electronics.design (I think) > posted a link to a presentation that quoted TI's figures, that a > worldwide conversion to lead free packages would save about the same > amount of lead as in TEN car batteries. > > The european parliament is a complete waste of time and a huge waste > of money. > > > Nial. > > >Fair enough, We sell our products to many European companies, both small and large. I sure many EU based companies are struggling with these same issues. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Reply by ●February 14, 20062006-02-14
> > The european parliament is a complete waste of time and a huge waste > of money. > > > Nial. > >It's even worse. The political people that decided to go for the RoHs rules made it even worse. In order to avoid the lead, you have to poison the environment more, because you need a substitute for lead and the separation process for lead needs more energy and more critical process steps. In the end, we have no lead, but many new problems. That's the way it works if you ask the political guys to do something ... ... and there is more to come in that direction ... BTW some industries have a permission for not being RoHs compliant. For example Cars, Trains, Medicine, Aircrafts etc. All the areas where a lot of lead is being used these days. At the end we end up with more legal rules and no real advantage of having to follow these rules ... "This is just another brick in the wall" to lower our competition, in the global market ... really nice time to come ..." Also these guys do not have a clear answer on : "What has to be done for all the situations where a 100 % RoHs transition is just not possible, because the parts are not available. But as in most cases these 'stupid' and 'boring' real life details do not really interest the political guys. Ha ... Markus
