Tin Whiskers — Fact Or Fiction?

bLanark writes "Some time ago, most electronics were soldered with old-fashioned lead solder, which has been tried and tested for decades. In 2006, the EU banned lead in solder, and so most manufacturers switched to a lead-free solder. Most made the switch in advance, I guess due to shelf-life of products and ironing out problems working with the new material. Lead is added to solder as it melts at low temperature, but also, it prevents the solder from growing 'whiskers' — crystalline limbs of metal. The effect of whiskers on soldered equipment would include random short-circuits and strange RF-effects. Whiskers can grow fairly quickly and become quite long. Robert Cringley wrote this up this some time ago, but it seems that the world has not been taking notice. I guess cars (probably around 30 processors in a modern car) and almost every appliance would be liable to fail sooner than expected due to tin whiskers. Note that accelerated life-expectancy tests can't simulate the passing of time for whiskers to grow. I've googled, and there is plenty of research into the effects of tin whiskers. I should point out that the Wikipedia page linked to above states that tin whisker problems 'are negligible in modern alloys,' but can we trust Wikipedia? So: was the tin whisker problem overhyped, was it an initial problem that has been solved in the few years since lead-free solder came into use, or is it affecting anyone already?"

Comments

If you don't trust wikipedia...

[ForestGrump]

If you don't trust wikipedia, then change it! That's the whole idea behind wikipedia.

This insightful comment brought to you by Forest Grump - /. ID #644805

Tip: Do not change it using your home/work computer. It is best to change it from a public library in a city far far away.
Tip #2: Don't buy a plane ticket to travel to this far far away city. It is best to hitchhike so you can save on travel $$$ and not leave a paper trail.

Re:Well,, I can only say...

[Daimanta]

In South Kore, only old people solder tin whiskers!

Re:obvious answer

[NetSettler]

I used to buy into Wikipedia's stated ethos until I realized that any one person can ... hijack articles to push and protect their point of view and once that happens you can forget about the "Five Pillars" and objectivity.

Well, trust is not a binary thing. You can trust someone for one thing and not another. And even if you do trust, you can have trust at a wide variety of different levels.

I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia in some ways either, not so much because it lies, but because it doesn't want the truth. If I know something true, and I'm the only person in the world, it doesn't want it. But if I know something false, and I write it up, then it's referenceable, and it becomes closer to something Wikipedia does want. I can understand both of those at some level, but I think Wikipedia should care a lot more than it does about creating new mechanisms to let in real truth (perhaps creating a mechanism by which individual knowledge can be vetted) and keep out falsehoods (perhaps creating mechanisms for peer review of referenced documents). The fact that it doesn't is, of course, why other competitors have come up. I guess on that point, you have to score one for the marketplace for at least creating the idea and allowing competition to crank out alternatives.

But as to what to trust in Wikipedia, their strength is that the things they say are supposed to be things that can be backed up by reference. Where you see a strong claim and no reference, find a way to flag that fact and maybe the person who put it in will add a reference. Where you see a reference, follow the chain back to the original source. That source may ultimately be believable or not, of course. In some sense, by its choice of paradigm, Wikipedia is just a complicated, statically-enumerated set of search engine results. It gets you started, but it isn't the whole of the thing you want.

If I knew more about phenomenology, I'd probably say that's just the nature of the Universe, and that Wikipedia can no more escape it than anyone can escape the Three Laws of Thermodynamics. That is, no one ever really knows anything about the Universe other than what they're told, and what they can work out in terms of internal consistency checks on what they're told. But all I know of that is what I've seen mentioned in Dark Star. So I'll let you do your own research there. Whether to direct you to Wikipedia or the movie though, to study more of phenomenology... I dunno, that's a hard choice. Probably I'd say just see the movie. It's worth more than the 6.5 stars IMDB gives it. One could just imagine what Bomb #20 might have to say on the matter of Wikipedia...