LEAD FREE vs LEAD SOLDERING

[KF4UJA]

At the present time I am considering purchasing a used DR-235T or the newer model DR-235TMKIII. Yesterday I called Ham Distributors about the difference between the 2 models. I was told by Eric that the only difference was that the newer model is "lead free".(this applies to all products sold by Alinco, as they are a global corporation and other countries have placed restrictions on lead soldering). I also received an email from the person I was considering purchase of a used DR-235T. Ironically, he stated, and I quote: "The newer ones with the lead free solder are questionable at best". Now, I value all input on this issue from any of you relative to the pros and cons of this issue. For instance, opinions, factual technical aspects, future problems, and any other related input, etc., as related to the above quote! I would appreciate any and all immediate responses, as I need to make a decision ASAP. Thanks,
Jerry KF4UJA

[K4ICL]

Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a national corporation, who competes with other large national corporations, producing a "lead free" product inferior to their previous models.

The more likely scenario is they are producing a better product to gain customer confidence.

Jerry, in my humble opinion, go for the new stuff. Lead free technology is not that different from the previous leaded solder. The alloy is the main difference. The solder characteristics are not too different.

See: http://www.leadfreemagazine.com/pages/p ... -final.pdf

AL

[wa8mea]

-

[KF4UJA]

Many, Many "THANK YOU'S" to all who responded to my issue/question!!!! I do not care to say that I was totally ignorant to any and all RoHS technological issues!! The input from all of you assisted me in making my decision to purchase the newer model DR-235TMKIII that very afternoon. I did make the seller of the used unit a reasonable offer but did not get any response from him, however(?). I wonder why?!?! 73
Jerry KF4UJA
GOD's Abundant Blessings To All

[n7emw]

I feel it is important to respond to Bill's reply that "lead free solder is just one of many insane global regs" - people who state such ideas are flat out wrong.

It is important for people to understand that the waste problems and other enviornmental issues are REAL - it may be that this century is the one where the human race either addresses global environmental issues in a big way or faces global disasters. There are LOTS of money making opportunities for "getting green" for those of us who support business so going green does not mean business will collapse!

I've worked in the environmental remediation field, primarily contamination cleanup and waste management, for a Fortune 50 defense industry company for over 20 years and prior to that spent 7 years in the oil industry, so I am not "a tree hugger with extreme views" . I also teach environmental science. I've seen first hand how improperly disposing of material (lead and other) on land and water has harmed people, let alone the environment.

Getting lead and other heavy metals out of electronic equipment is NOT some "tree hugger" conspiracy, it is a REAL response to a major waste disposal issue. The same thing was said in the 70's when catalytic converters first appeared in cars - last time I checked cars today are FAR more powerful than cars of 30 years ago and even have better fuel efficiency and are far more reliable!

We must not live in the past when environmental issues were not understood, instead we must address issues for future generations quality of life.

[wa8mea]

-

[n7emw]

Bill,

The mistake many make is that they believe that "global warming" has been made up by politicians of the party you do not like and is not supported by scientists of all parties who KNOW the topic.

I did read the article in Denver Post at the link you posted. The author admits he does not have a scientific background but again makes it a political thing which it is NOT. Since he has no expertise his comments are not worth the electrons that it took to write the article. I like to get information from people who UNDERSTAND the TOPIC, not spin doctors (of EITHER party).

By the way, I used to be a Republican, now Independant, so I'm not a "lefty", just a scientist who looks at the FACT of SCIENCE not what is politically correct. By the way, the glaciers in the Andes are melting so while it is possible to have a year or two of very cold weather that in itself does not mean global warming is not happening (I was in Peru to observe the melting glaciers which only happens if the regional climate is warming).

Actually most people combine three issues into the catch phrase "global warming" while in the context they are thinking about is really three issues:

(1) global warming only deals with whether the planet is warming or not - the scientifically based response, from REAL SCIENTISTS of all parties, is YES, it is.
(2) the cause of global warming - is it natural factors (natural methane, sun's energy output, volcanic activity, etc.) and/or human factors? The SCIENTIFICALLY BASED answer is YES, humans have caused SOME of the warming but no one knows how much. Forget Gore and the others you do not share in polictical statements, instead listen to REAL scientists.
(3) will global warming affect people and/or the ecology? SCIENTIFIC answer to both is YES, absolutely. In some parts of the planet the changing climate will help people, in other areas it will be VERY BAD. Another factor is that storms and planetary climate are driven by heat so a small temperature increase will mean we will have a larger percentage of storms being severe - not that they will be every year everywhere just more often and more common.

I only replied to your comment as it is imperative that we as Americans get beyond what is "the correct political view to take for the political party I belong to". If you have any offspring then either you do not understand the issue from a non political view point or you don't care about how you leave the planet to them (or they live on another planet).

Dick

[wa8mea]

It is SO arrogant for man to assume that within the fraction, of a fraction of a millisecond of time which he's been on the Earth that he can scientifically determine everything that takes place.

What blowhards we human beings are....

Bill
(And soldering with LEADED solder as I write....)

[wa8mea]

StarTribune.com
Weather Channel founder calls global warming a scam

Last update: November 12, 2007 – 4:58 PM
The founder of the Weather Channel cable network is getting some heat over his contention that global warming is "the greatest scam in history."

John Coleman, now meteorologist of KUSI-TV in San Diego, issued that declaration in a lengthy blog posting on www.icecap.us.

Among Coleman's points:

• The campaign to assign a degree of human responsibility for global warming was hatched by "dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives" in the "late 1990s to create an illusion of rapid global warming."

• From there, "friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going." Then, "environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild 'scientific' scenario."

Coleman then went on to try and separate belief from science: "Global warming, i.e. climate change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you 'believe in.' It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of lifelong expertise."

Coleman's views have been circulated widely among like-minded blogs and websites but has received scant attention otherwise.

Among those challenging him is Daniel Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress. Weiss told the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin:

"We are seeing the impacts of global warming now that were not supposed to occur until years from now."

Weiss cited as examples the melting of Greenland's ice sheets and a higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than most scientists had previously predicted.

"Whether or not the sea-level rise prediction is 3 feet or 7 feet, we know that the phenomenon is real because it's happening today," Weiss told the Bulletin.

The Weather Channel, following numerous media inquiries after Coleman's blog posting went live, declined to directly respond to its founder's views, but said, "The Weather Channel is an advocate for environmental efforts and has adopted a broader initiative, called Forecast Earth, which focuses on educating the public about climate change and empowering people to make a difference."

As for how Coleman explains his conclusion, he wrote that he "read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."

He added that there are "hundreds of other meteorologists ... who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy ... is not valid."

Along with founding the Weather Channel in the early 1980s, Coleman has been a TV weatherman in central Illinois, Chicago, Omaha, Nebraska, Milwaukee and New York. For seven years he was the weatherman on ABC-TV's "Good Morning, America."

To read Coleman's blog, visit www.startribune.com/a3631.

--PAUL WALSH

[n7emw]

Bill,

What is your problem? Why do you find all of the answers that you want to hear and avoid the truth you do not want to hear?

The anti global warming crowd is simply fighting the issue because it is either an ego issue, a political view or they do not truly understand climate and environmental issues nor do they have the curiosity to discuss the issues in an objective manner.

I do not care if you believe in global warming or not and your answers indicate to me that you simply want to believe what you want to believe. As a scientist with a substantial environmental background I simply feel some responsibility to help educate others on current scientific thought. Other people have educated me on a wide variety of issues that I do not have a strong background in - learning new things can actually be fun.

I'm curious about your age and background, as during my 30 years in the environmental field I have run across a group or two of folks who simply think any environmental stewarship is simply a conspiracy of tree huggers or they are inflexible in trying to understand another view of the issue.

This will be my last reply. Best of luck to you.

Dick

[wa8mea]

Coleman then went on to try and separate belief from science: "Global warming, i.e. climate change is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you 'believe in.' It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of lifelong expertise."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, too....must state the same. Although an amateur meteorologist, I have been studying weather since age ten. I am 52 now.

Most meteorologists agree with Mr. Coleman and me. It's the climatologists who have the problem of not understanding the Earth, its cycles and its weather patterns.

Personally, I'm more worried about a possible direct hit from a flare in 5.5 years than I am from any of this global warming BS....

Bill

....Waking up to yet ANOTHER pre-season snowfall and continued below normal temps.....

(This is why they had to change the term from "global warming" to "climate change". Each time they'd schedule a global warming conference, blizzards would erupt!)

[wa8mea]

Mr. Samuel Clemens, a.k.a. Mark Twain, popularized a wonderful quote during his lifetime:

"There are lies, damn lies and statisitics."

His point was to show that anyone can skew data, even in today's world to make it look as if the planet Earth is going to become toast in five to ten years.

Here's yet another issues that one has to question regarding the recording of temperatures over the years:

HEAT OF THE MOMENT
'Global warming' shocker – Who's minding thermometers?
Surface temperature recording stations a shambles, says veteran meteorologist
Posted: November 18, 2007
9:55 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Dire "global warming" predictions are based on bad science from the very start, says a veteran meteorologist who found surface temperatures recorded throughout the U.S. are done so with almost no regard to scientific standards.

As a result of his shocking initial findings that temperature monitoring stations were constructed and placed without regard to achieving accurate recordings of natural temperatures, Anthony Watts set out to investigate the facilities used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

What he found were temperature stations with sensors on the roofs of buildings, near air-conditioning exhaust vents, in parking lots near hot automobiles, barbecues, chimneys and on pavement and concrete surfaces – all of which would lead to higher temperature recordings than properly established conditions.

To qualify as a properly maintained temperature station, sensors must be placed in elevated, slatted boxes on flat ground surrounded by a clear surface on a slope of less than 19 degrees with surrounding grass and vegetations ground cover of less than 10 centimeters high. The sensors must be located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces and parking lots.

Watts' concerns about the temperatures being used to gauge whether global warming is actually taking place began when he read a 1997 study by the U.S. National Research Council that concluded the consistency and quality of temperature stations was "inadequate and deteriorating." Meanwhile, he learned, the U.S. Historical Climatological Network, responsible for maintaining the stations, was doing nothing to address the problems.

So Watts decided to take up the challenge himself. After surveying a few randomly chosen temperature stations and being shocked at the shortcomings, he set forth on a plan to survey all 1,221 stations, taking photographs along the way. With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.

The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.

All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards, Mr. Bill