“Any specialty, if important, is too important to be left to the specialists.” After all, the specialist cannot function unless he concentrates more or less entirely on his specialty and, in doing so, he will ignore the vast universe lying outside and miss important elements that ought to help guide his judgment. He therefore needs the help of the nonspecialist, who, while relying on the specialist for key information, can yet supply the necessary judgment based on everything else… Science, therefore, has become too important to be left to the scientists.
— Isaac Asimov

I believe that only scientists can understand the universe. It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong.
— Isaac Asimov

The salient point is "while relying on the specialist for key information" - you don't see much of that from politicians!

 

The salient point is "while relying on the specialist for key information" - you don't see much of that from politicians!

We (politicians included) normally pick the specialist that agrees with our opinion.

 

“Any specialty, if important, is too important to be left to the specialists.” After all, the specialist cannot function unless he concentrates more or less entirely on his specialty and, in doing so, he will ignore the vast universe lying outside and miss important elements that ought to help guide his judgment. He therefore needs the help of the nonspecialist, who, while relying on the specialist for key information, can yet supply the necessary judgment based on everything else… Science, therefore, has become too important to be left to the scientists.
— Isaac Asimov

I believe that only scientists can understand the universe. It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong.
— Isaac Asimov

What we really need are reliable and trustworthy systems that can correct mistakes in judgement and science in reasonable periods of time.

Well... I didn't say let "THE" scientist do the talking. You can't be a specialist in "climate change", not really, not at all.

You might be a specialist in one very specific field that affects climate change, but since you are actually, supposedly, seeking the truth and shouldn't be an activist or a business man with money or interests involved in what you are investigating and being an expert at, you should realize pretty easily that you need the knowledge of other scientists experts in other fields that are involved in the same main problem to correctly think of the best solution possible.

A specialist needing the help of a non-specialist sounds VERY dumb, like VERY, very dumb.

Not saying that a math PhD can't help a scientist resolve a specific problem about something this Phd hasn't studied ever; everyone can help, or has the potential to give an original idea or a different point of view, or can transpose something that works in one field to another. Even a breeder or rancher can help, or influence, it just can happen. Indeed, many, many math problems have been resolved by physicists, engineers and chemists, even some problems that had been tried to be resolved by very good mathematicians that failed. However, these 3 groups DO know about math, from "knowledgeable" to "very much/expert". So I would not consider those "non-specialists", as they can have a vast knowledge about math.

What we need is a group of experts talking about what they know, and remove any illiterate intermediary that just repeats what has been told. Take COVID-19, every single politician, that normally have law degrees, or social degrees, or even politics degrees, went on TV saying people what to do, how to act, what is this virus, what is this, that... just SHUT UP and let the physicians talk, let the biologists talk, you have absolutely nothing to mandate to anyone, and if you are advised by a group of experts, PLEASE, I want those to talk to me, not you!

The problem comes when these experts have ideologies or agendas. Then you are in a CHECK MATE situation, it's like having a country with corrupt police. You are messed. Who patrols the patrol? Who overlooks the vigilante? Who watches the Police? Is the corrupt cop going to watch the other corrupt cop? Not really. It's pretty much a corrupt scientist, whose "expert" opinion should be discarded.

 

Now here is an interesting thing, which is that in recorded history there was a warming trend that I think related to the renisance, at least about the same time. And then another point is that if the dinosaurs were cold-blooded types then probably it was warmer when they were alive. So perhaps there are cycles, possibly in the sun's heat output, that are longer than we imagine. And if the heat output from the sun had increased perhaps as much as 0.01% a hundred years ago, wouldn't it take the earth a while to heat up??? And now, who is going to turn down the temperature setting of the sun, just a small amount???

 

Considerably warmer when the dinosaurs were alive:

 

I was thinking more recently, probably the past thousand years. But certainly it seems that variations do happen. And mostly not due to human activities. I find the sudden stabilizing back at the ten-thousand year point interesting and wonder if there is a reasonable, believable explanation.

 

Yes, variations do happen and the current one is caused by humans. The scientific evidence for that is now overwhelming and IMO impossible to refute. This is an example of science done mainly right (like the dangers of lead) with the main current disputes on the usefulness, effectiveness and need for countermeasures to that human caused variation.

 

When you consider the reductions in personal freedoms that come with some of the actions, it starts to look like there is also a "second agenda" at work, which is aimed at a target much different than simply avoiding the claimed downsides of a slightly warmer planet.
And keep in mind that Natural Selection can be far more rapid than anybody imagines.
I see that the "theory of evolution" is in reality a sugar coated explanation for the rather harsh reality of natural selection.
Certainly this is a bit far from the original topic of the question. Hope it does not seem to harsh.

 

When you consider the reductions in personal freedoms that come with some of the actions, it starts to look like there is also a "second agenda" at work, which is aimed at a target much different than simply avoiding the claimed downsides of a slightly
...

What about the 'third and forth agendas'?

This is obvious a IMO lazy rational to do nothing. Doing nothing is a valid response but I see a lot of obscuration of that fact with BS conspiracy theories like the "second agenda" to make us slaves to some global cabal of reptilian (obviously more intelligent than human) leaders. I've railed in the past about misguided bans like leaded-solder but there is not a secret agenda IMO, only very public INCOMPETENCE at work as usual.

 

The "second agenda" relates at least partly to that group who were, back in the 50's and early sixties,complaining about how horrible it was that not all of the world was as well off as the more developed portions were. Never mind that those segments had been that way much longer that other countries had existed.
So the chant changed from ""Life is so terribly unfair, and it is all your fault" to a cry of "The climate is changing and it's all your fault." And repeating it loud enough and often enough folks came to accept it as being true.
And the reality has been verified by means of using selected data, certainly a proven method of obtaining the desired results of any research effort.

 

When you consider the reductions in personal freedoms that come with some of the actions, it starts to look like there is also a "second agenda" at work, which is aimed at a target much different than simply avoiding the claimed downsides of a slightly warmer planet.
And keep in mind that Natural Selection can be far more rapid than anybody imagines.
I see that the "theory of evolution" is in reality a sugar coated explanation for the rather harsh reality of natural selection.
Certainly this is a bit far from the original topic of the question. Hope it does not seem to harsh.

Bill, seriously you need to apply your obvious intelligence to better data and more second order thinking. This hot take is beneath what you are capable of.

First, why consider “the reductions in personal freedom”? How is that relevant to analyzing the the motivations behind mitigating (or remediating) AGW? I don’t think you can show this, any more than any “conspiracy theorist” can back up the various claims fashionable at the time they are espousing whichever variant they’ve latched on to.

As compelling as it may be to believe this or that, for some reason the evidentiary gaps are less important than being able to make some connection between the entities and ideas involved that feels convincing. But this, like many things, is too important to check your rationality at the door—challenge your intuition and debunk your own claims, it will be easy enough.

Second, framing the situation as “a slightly warmer planet” is pure sophistry. I am certain you believe it, but consider—if I have a 10A fuse and run 9.8A through it, all is well. But the alarmists will tell me that adding just 3% more current, just slightly more, will cause a failure. It’s already handling more than 30 times the current, slightly more really can’t matter, right?

When a complex system is in a stable equilibrium, even if it involves enormous numbers, the input to cause it to go chaotic doesn’t have to be very large at all compared to the totality. Changing something to which the system is sensitive only a relatively small amount can be enough to overwhelm the mechanisms providing homeostasis disrupt that equilibrium.

Imagining the climate as a bulk item, like a giant rock, and the anthropogenic changes to it as a pebble is certainly a satisfying way to avoid considering the heart of the problem. After all, no matter how much force is put behind that pebble in throwing it at the rock, it will remain unmoved.

But that’s a false model. Consider something more apt, like the systems in a drive-by-wire car. The engine of the car can be producing kW of power, how could the mW of the control system change that? I mean, it’s absurd to suggest that the tiny signals applied to the control system, or even the order of magnitude larger ones applied to actuators, could really influence the massive engine output—so what is the hidden agenda behind this nonsense about CAN and engine control systems?

I know you are pretty set in your ways, and your opinions are not without logic and rationales that satisfy your need to be consistent but it’s really not too late to adopt the art of the philosopher and possible open your own eyes to things you’ve summarily rejected, and things you’ve adopted as explanations for “how things really work”. The competent philosopher tries to make the most cogent arguments she can for the view she opposes, as if it was her own.

In doing so, you may find you can change your own mind. This takes a certain kind of bravery and honesty because only you will know if you’ve actually made and considered your best case for a view that might disrupt your Weltanschauung—something that is never comfortable, will cause disruption, and can be humiliating in some cases.

But I honestly think your intelligence and insight is up to the task. Keep in mind, you don’t have to “flip” to the “opposition” camp—in fact that’s equivalent to not having progressed at all. Instead, you should find yourself in a privileged position to eschew the orthodoxy of “both sides”, this being an artificial of politics and not a part of nature.

It is literally never too late to open your eyes to the limitations and shortcomings of your own fixed opinions and see the world (more) clearly and become wiser.

 

I really wonder what would happen if instead of asking "where's my loved leaded wire?" I asked something more philosophical.

Like... why does electricity exist? Why is there a field? Why does it get generated? Not how but why? What is the purpose in the generation of such field? Why cylindrical resistors are rectangles, but rectangle capacitors are 2 straight lines? Why we call it solder and lost the opportunity for electric glue?

 

When you consider the reductions in personal freedoms that come with some of the actions, it starts to look like there is also a "second agenda" at work, which is aimed at a target much different than simply avoiding the claimed downsides of a slightly warmer planet.
And keep in mind that Natural Selection can be far more rapid than anybody imagines.
I see that the "theory of evolution" is in reality a sugar coated explanation for the rather harsh reality of natural selection.
Certainly this is a bit far from the original topic of the question. Hope it does not seem to harsh.

Hello there,

[Note: If you do not want to read about my thoughts on climate change please skip down to the very last part of this, "Lead Free Solder And Substitutes"]

This is not a new idea there are a lot of people who are thinking about this now due to the push for certain changes that have not yet been well thought out. The one that comes to mind first is the push for EV's vs ICE motor vehicles.

When it comes to climate change however, my view is that there is no real proof yet that man is changing anything significant that is not that far from natural, and even if there is, there is still the "personal freedoms" issue that you mentioned. This is what all arguments come down to: a tradeoff.

Now some may think that a 'tradeoff' is not something we can think about when it comes to climate change because climate change is one of the most important issues of the day, and a change that is too large would spell doom for everyone. That is, unfortunately, very true, but it's not the whole argument yet.
Climate change does not happen overnight, at least not yet, and thus it's not just degrees C or degrees F that matter alone, it's also 't' for time. It's about both degrees C (or F) and time 't' as well. There are many other dimensions to this problem but I'll restrict myself right now to just those two: time and temperature.

Temperature is easy to understand. It goes up, we have difficulties, and we expect it to go up. Time however, is harder to understand, because that is part of where the tradeoff begins. This is probably best understood with a couple simple examples, and a couple assumptions about what helps.
1. Assuming EV's really help, lets say that nobody switches to an EV and the temperature goes up by 1 degree in the next 5 years, and that in 50 years everyone on the planet is dead because of the temperature rise.
2. Let's say that nobody switches to EV's, and the temperature rises by 1.1 degrees in the next 5 years, and everyone on the planet is dead in 45 years.

The question now seems to be, was that extra 5 years of life on the planet worth forcing everyone to switch to EV's ???

For me though the real question is that nobody can seem to predict exactly how this would play out because weather is much too complicated. Is it really 5 years, or is it 10 years, or 100 years, or is it just 1 year difference? Clearly 1 year difference is not that much, assuming that it could be predicted that precisely. In the meantime, many people may have to live suffering with government mandated changes to their lifestyle even though it's almost all for nothing.

So I am not exactly against climate change issues, I just think we need more exact data on what the entire story is, and how much change that is thought to help actually helps, and for how long that will extend life on earth.

Unfortunately, politics enters the discussion that is already mixed with massive uncertainties. The need for maintaining one's position in the government seems to outweigh the need for anything that could actually be a good change, mandated or not. That's probably the real straw in the camels back.
As the saying goes, politics makes liars of us all, but maybe politics also makes us all dead

[Lead Free Solder And Substitutes]
Ok so back to the real subject matter. Lead or no lead.
The best recommendation I can think of if anyone cannot find leaded solder is to try silver bearing solder. I've used that in the most challenging situations and it works well for me. I think it actually flows better than 63/37 although I also use that too most of the time.

 

By the way... about lead-free solder... could it be that SAC305: 96.5% tin (Sn), 3% silver (Ag), and 0.5% copper (Cu) is the best or one of the best lead-free solders?

 

By the way... about lead-free solder... could it be that SAC305: 96.5% tin (Sn), 3% silver (Ag), and 0.5% copper (Cu) is the best or one of the best lead-free solders?

That’s the one I use.

 

By the way... about lead-free solder... could it be that SAC305: 96.5% tin (Sn), 3% silver (Ag), and 0.5% copper (Cu) is the best or one of the best lead-free solders?

No. It’s one of the oldest lead-free alloys. It is well understood by the industry, which has its advantages, and it is the lowest melting point lead-free (around 218C) that doesn‘t use bismuth (which brings its own complications). But it doesn’t flow all that great, it isn’t eutectic, it makes dull joints, and its high silver content makes it expensive.

Cost has been the primary driver to the cheaper 99.7% tin, 0.3% copper alloy, which has a higher melting point (227C) and is eutectic, but flows even worse IIRC. But it certainly can be used just fine with well-controlled processes. Not my first choice for hand soldering.

IMHO the best lead-free for hand soldering is the much newer nickel- and germanium-doped alloy originally developed by Fuji, but now widely available since the patent on it expired. I buy it as Felder SN100Ni+, but Kester calls it K100LD, and others have other names for it. It’s basically 99.25% tin, 0.7% copper, but with a tiny amount of nickel (0.05%) and a trace amount of germanium added — and those last two make all the difference. It isn’t quite as nice to use as 63/37 leaded, but it comes close, as long as your soldering iron is powerful enough to handle the temperature needed (227C). In an earlier reply someone stated that lead-free will never produce shiny joints, but as a blanket statement that’s not true — this stuff does! (SAC305 and its relatives will never produce shiny joints.) I’ve tried multiple brands of multiple alloys of lead-free, and the Felder SN100Ni+ is by far the best I’ve tried, despite not being the lowest-temperature alloy. Felder seems to have nice flux. And its eutectic, which is nicer to work with.

 

Personally, I think 63/37 is better because it's eutectic. The latter isn't eutectic because the melting temperature is 183-190C.

The last time I researched RoHS, solder with lead was allowed in the EU for hobbyists.

What most people don’t realize is that there are two laws at play.

RoHS, which came first, restricted lead in finished goods, which is why manufacturers had to get rid of lead. The claimed rationale is keeping it out of the environment. (As others said already: the vast majority of the lead in electronics was in CRT glass. I don’t think anyone predicted how quickly CRTs would be replaced by LCDs in the time between RoHS’s drafting and ratification and its taking effect.) RoHS did not restrict the sale of lead solder to anyone, it only restricted what it could be used for.

The second law is REACH, which restricts the sale of various substances to consumers. REACH bans the sale of lead solder to consumers, restricting it to “professional” buyers only. Most retailers in Europe had switched to selling lead-free already, but REACH is what made it a requirement to restrict sales. This is also the law that prevents the sale of various chemicals to consumers, including many that were once considered ordinary household chemicals.

In practice, mom and pop shops still sell lead solder to consumers (the few mom and pop electronics stores that exist, that is!) because there is no documentation requirement to require proof that someone is a professional user. And of course non-EU distributors, like DigiKey and Mouser, will happily mail you as much lead solder as you want, even as a consumer.

 

I chose a Sn99-Ag0.3-Cu0.7, is that wrong?
I chose it because it has Ag, Cu, and is the best seller, and they say it's a good quality solder in the comments.

I am probably buying a leaded wire from AliExpress too.

About this sentence "As for repairs, the best solder for a repair is the same solder that is already on the joint"...
I think that's wrong, because if there's lead-free solder and you add 63/37 solder (I think what I've been doing all my life TBH, as all the devices I have repaired are RoHS), you create a new alloy which has lead and a better composition in terms of performance.

Correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong.

Small amounts of lead contaminate lead-free solder and make it weaker.

And don’t buy solder from AliExpress. You never know what you’re going to get. Even if a product has good reviews (many of which are by people who have no idea what they’re talking about to begin with, and many of which are given before they ever try the product, so they’re really just reviewing the shipping), that is no guarantee that future batches will be good. Cheap Chinese solder is notoriously inconsistent, with some believing they may even make it from whatever scrap they recover from e-waste.

A pound or half kilo of solder will last a hobbyist for years and years, so just get a reel of top-quality solder and remember that the cost of the solder in any given project is practically zero. In contrast, your components (which you should also avoid buying on AliExpress) are very much not free, and you wouldn’t want to ruin them by struggling with bad solder. Nor is your patience limitless. It’s certainly not worth saving $50 over the course of a decade or two.

 

Thank you so much @tooki for your solid replies, you attacked the point of the thread (you would not believe the amount of times I ask something very straight forward in a forum and not a single reply answers any of my very clear questions) and you look savvy.

I use AliExpress a lot, but always with caution not to buy trash, there's a lot and you have to know how to buy and filter vendors. Anyways, I ended up buying this one:


It does not come in a nameless transparent tube and looks well tagged. I still have to try it because my older solder is not finished yet. What do you think? How can I test it's really 63 37 solder?

I probably was struggling (or am TBH) with the REACH law you talk about, as years ago I would go search for soldering wire in Amazon and many other places and there was 63 37 everywhere, and now you are lucky if out of 20, 1 of them is leaded.

I will try that lead-free solder you talk about if the price is fine (I just bought 800g of leaded solder so... yeah)

Thank you once again!