Marko, I found your post in the 2004 archives thanks to Scott Douglas’ posted announcement. You appear to be well ahead of the curve in dealing with RoHS requirements.
I am interested in any information you can share regarding replacement of hexavalent chromium by trivalent chromium on metal finishes. Can you point me to some information on trivalent finishes that are protective, yet electrically conductive. Currently we use ZINC(Fe/Zn5) ASTM B633 TYPE III. CLEAR .0002 THICK CLEAR: colorless chromate conversion coating and ZINC(Fe/Zn5) ASTM B633 TYPE II. YELLOW .0002 THICK YELLOW: color chromate conversion coating finishes on cold rolled sheet steel chassis (CRS AISI 1010 OR 1018). Naturally, both of these finishes contain hexavelent chromium. I anticipate replacing these hexavalent chromium finishes if I can figure out what to replace them with. Thank you, Jim _____________________ James L. Knighten, Ph.D. Teradata, a division of NCR http://www.ncr.com 17095 Via del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 tel: 858-485-2537 fax: 858-485-3788 1383 - RoHS impact on EMC & Safety SENT: Apr 19, 2004 12:37 PM Greetings, We are in the process of planning to evolve our product line to comply with the upcoming EU directive on hazardous materials - RoHS (Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment - Directive 2002/95/EC). The questions we are facing now is how much testing, if any, is required to requalify products against the EMC and LV Directives after the conversion. Of particular interest are the following material conversions: 1. Change of solder materials - replace Lead (Pb) with a Silver-Copper (Ag-Cu) mixture. 2. Replacement of the flame retardants in the FR-4 - UL94 V-0 rating remains the unchanged. 3. Replacement of Hexavalent Chromium by Trivalent Chromium on metal finishes - resistivity remains pretty well the same. >From everything that I've researched to date, I am leaning towards doing a single A/B comparison for radiated & conducted emissions with the first RoHS-compliant product and then, based on the presumably good results, not doing anymore requalifications. In conjunction, we'll do a full-blown product requalification to ensure that the signal integrity is also unchanged. This strategy will validate that no high-frequency electrical properties have changed, as expected. Does anyone else have thoughts on this matter? Thanks, Marko [email protected] 650/625-2624 PS The full text of the RoHS directive can be found here: http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc <http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_ oc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32002L0095&mo> &lg=EN&numdoc=32002L0095&model=guichett This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
