On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:42:47 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

The debate about lead free solders seem to be nearly as politically charged as
that about anthropogenic global warming and a casualty seems to be useful data.

I've read plenty of comments to the effect that lead-free is less reliable in
the long term (vibration seems to be a key weakness AIUI - maybe also thermal
cycling) which presumably explains the exemptions for certain categories, yet
I've also seen some studies that claim it can out-perform lead containing
solders.

Is there any real hard and fast information out there that one can rely on ?

Graham

Don't look to this newsgroup for factual info on lead free! Instead
look at actual test results in the trade publications such as SMT
magazine:
http://smt.pennnet.com/home.cfm
They have published numerous tests comparing various lead free
materials and processes with tin-lead. Some lead free materials and
processes are better than others (no surprise) and picking the best
one for your situation is non-trivial.

My nutshell summary of the published test results is that lead free is
significantly harder to do right than tin-lead, requiring tighter
process controls, but if done right it can be more reliable than
tin-lead for non-shock situations. Lead free is harder, stronger and
more brittle than tin-lead so tin-lead will deform plastically under
high shock when lead free will break, however lead free will withstand
more hot-cold cycles than before failure than tin-lead (better fatigue
resistance). So you need to know what the significant failure
mechanisms are in your design to pick the most reliable materials.

Glen