Optical compression in the EU

[rbuskov]

I'd like to revive this topic to discuss the Xvive vactrols, which are ROHS certified. The documentation can found here: https://www.xviveaudio.com/download/Manual/Xvive_Opto_coupler_Datasheet.zip

If I read the test report from SGS correctly, they do contain cadmium but the percentage of the offending substance in the component as a whole is within the acceptable range. I guess the "trick" here is to bundle the LDR with a LED and the casing, so the relative amount of cadmium decreases.

Any thoughts on this from the people who seem to know a lot about this subject (Jakob E?)

 

[ruffrecords]

Pity they seem to be out of stock.

Cheers

Ian

 

[rbuskov]

Pity they seem to be out of stock.

I think you're supposed to email them for a quote. They are in stock in many webshops.

 

[scott2000]

They are in stock in many webshops.

yes
I think cabintech global usually has them..... they have an Ebay shop ...

https://www.ebay.com/sch/cabin-globa/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=


neat....They have those ALFA LM394 equivalents......

 

[volker]

Pity they seem to be out of stock.

Cheers

Ian

https://www.thonk.co.uk/shop/vactrols-vtl5c/

 

[ruffrecords]

https://www.thonk.co.uk/shop/vactrols-vtl5c/

Good call. How do we know these are the ROHS versions?

Cheers

Ian

 

[gyraf]

If you look through the EU consultations, you will find that this is not the first time (or even the second time) that companies has claimed to have ROHS-conform LDR's.

Look up e.g. how "Macron" also based their claims on falsified laboratory reports - and were nicked by commission inquiry during the stakeholder consultations

And no, it's not ending your responsibility that you get a supplier to sign a conformity claim.

As far as I know (and I am looking closely!) there's no solution to this other than by accident stumbling upon a new material with this sort of photoresistive properties.

/Jakob E.

 

[mjrippe]

Even with the "bad stuff" fully encapsulated, they won't allow it?  Perhaps they need to see a scientific study first or something.  Any knowledge about that, Jakob?

 

[rbuskov]

If you look through the EU consultations, you will find that this is not the first time (or even the second time) that companies has claimed to have ROHS-conform LDR's.

Look up e.g. how "Macron" also based their claims on falsified laboratory reports - and were nicked by commission inquiry during the stakeholder consultations

And no, it's not ending your responsibility that you get a supplier to sign a conformity claim.

As far as I know (and I am looking closely!) there's no solution to this other than by accident stumbling upon a new material with this sort of photoresistive properties.

/Jakob E.

I'm not claiming to know an awful lot about this matter, but it occurs to me that posting your falsified lab report online for everyone to see is a pretty bold move? The report is from SGS (which is a reputable, international company) and it looks pretty legit to me.

The report clearly states that the product DOES contain cadmium, but that the amount of this substance is below the limit specified in the ROHS directive. According to the report, this limit is 100 mg of cadmium per 1 kg of product.

If that is true, I think it stands to reason that making your LDR compliant is simply a matter of adding enough non-cadmium material? And isn't that exactly what Xvive is doing here? Their product is not an LDR, it is a vactrol that is made up of an LDR along with other parts (7 in total according to the report)?

 

[gyraf]

..it's a long and complicated discussion that we had already - the core of the question is not the absolute amount of cadmium, but the way it is measured - maximum 0.1% in "mechanically separable" parts.

This means in effect "what you can scrape of with a sharp knife".

And as the Cd has to be in the surface because that's where the light is coming to, then it will always be possible to get access to (very small amounts of) material exceeding the cadmium limit.

That is, until someone comes up with an alternative material - which we have waited eagerly for for a while now..

If you want to look closer at the report from the consultations - here deep-linked to the part where Macron’s claim that their photoresistors for  optocouplers  are  RoHS-compliant gets scrutinized:

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/rohs.pdf#page=41

/Jakob E.

 

[ruffrecords]

This means in effect "what you can scrape of with a sharp knife".

And as the Cd has to be in the surface because that's where the light is coming to, then it will always be possible to get access to (very small amounts of) material exceeding the cadmium limit.
/Jakob E.

What I do not understand is that there is no Cd you can scrape off. You can scrape of CdS but not Cd. Same way as nobody bans table salt NaCl just because it has that nasty metal Sodium in it.

Cheers

Ian

 

[gyraf]

..yeah, but it's still the amount of cadmium that counts, no matter how it's connected...

/Jakob E.

 

[Gold]

This means in effect "what you can scrape of with a sharp knife".

And as the Cd has to be in the surface because that's where the light is coming to, then it will always be possible to get access to .

Could you encase it in optical clear polycarbonate so light gets to it but it’s in a big pile of stuff?

 

[gyraf]

..the point is that no matter how you pack it, you can still slice off a high-Cd piece from the surface of the photocell. The problem is that the cadmium must be concentrated to the surface to work. Was it embedded in the material, it would be faaaaar under the 0.1% limit - some 25-100 ug cadmium per photocell (the EU themselves estimated that the ban on usage in pro audio would potentially reduce the total amount of cadmium in the whole EU area with less than 5g/year. Not even counting the low chances of these ending up as land fill ).

/Jakob E.

 

[ruffrecords]

..yeah, but it's still the amount of cadmium that counts, no matter how it's connected...

/Jakob E.

I am not saying you are wrong but are you sure about that. It is only cadmium itself that is dangerous, not its compounds most of which are benign just like table salt.

Cheers

Ian

 

[mjrippe]

from the surface of the photocell.

We are not talking about a photocell that is open and exposed.  We are talking about a completely encapsulated system here.  Now if you are building a T4B type opto from discrete components, then yes, that is a problem.

 

[gyraf]

You're misunderstanding. They will cut open the system and analyze even the smallest part they can separate mechanically.

As mentioned before, there's no simple way around this.

/Jakob E.

 

[ruffrecords]

You're misunderstanding. They will cut open the system and analyze even the smallest part they can separate mechanically.

As mentioned before, there's no simple way around this.

/Jakob E.

OK so you get down to the cadmium sulphide. There is no way you can mechanically extract cadmium from that.

Cheers

Ian

 

[gyraf]

OK so you get down to the cadmium sulphide. There is no way you can mechanically extract cadmium from that.

you don't need to - simple analysis like X-ray spectroscopy will easily give you the numbers directly

I think you misunderstand the rules here - Cadmium in any form, in any composite, carrying more than 0.1% Cd is within the scope of the ROHS

/Jakob E.

 

[rbuskov]

the EU themselves estimated that the ban on usage in pro audio would potentially reduce the total amount of cadmium in the whole EU area with less than 5g/year.

/Jakob E.

Almost makes me want to cry...  :'(