Did you mean SAE's AS6171 and the dozen or so slash sheets (for example
XRF, decap, x-ray, visual, CSAM etc.)?
"Test Methods Standard; General Requirements, Suspect/Counterfeit,
Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical Parts".


On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 3:10 PM [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I will list them here tomorrow. I will do anything to help put the
> counterfeit market down the flusher.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Tempea, Ioan
> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Anti Counterfeit
>
> ----
> External E-mail --- CAUTION: This email originated from outside GDMS. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
> O'Dean,
>
> Of course I would appreciate any standard numbers you can present. I have
> also seen this kind of documents, but can't recall where to find them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ioan
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : TechNet <[log in to unmask]> De la part de [log in to unmask]
> Envoyé : février 09, 2022 15:02 À : [log in to unmask] Objet : Re: [TN] Anti
> Counterfeit
>
> Yes, there are some good standards out there regarding counterfeit parts
> and detection methods. In those standards they note situations exactly as
> you described. Along with the first bunch of parts on the reel being good
> parts and the rest fakes, they showed how to use X-ray (as well as several
> other methods using a systemic, step-by-step checklist which included
> de-capping) to identify the fakes.
> I do not recall the Standards offhand, but I have them in the SOPs for
> receiving and receiving inspection departments in the client companies that
> I work for and can add them here tomorrow if anyone wants to know the
> standard numbers. None were IPC standards, they were what I call "other"
> standards, but they were sure helpful in putting together a Counterfeit
> Parts procedure that has eliminated all instances of fake parts getting
> built up into product.
> I am sure others on this forum can probably chime in with the numbers of
> the Standards for counterfeit detection and prevention.
> Odin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Jerry Dengler
> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 1:29 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Anti Counterfeit
>
> ----
> External E-mail --- CAUTION: This email originated from outside GDMS. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
> Another cautionary tale.  Some years ago we resurrected an old assembly
> for a customer which had a few obsolete components.  These were sourced
> through brokers.  These components were inspected, solder ability verified
> and the first 2 components on each reel were decaped and inspected. Along
> the way we one of the components had many lots that were counterfeit, some
> very convincing until they were decaped.  On one of the last builds we did
> this component passed all incoming checks but when we started testing units
> they were all failing.
>
> It turned out that the first 10 components in the reel were genuine
> components but the rest were counterfeit!  So then we would take 2 from the
> middle of a reel to decap.
>
> This is now part of our strategy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Dengler
> Production Manager
> Pergamon Corporation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rivera, Raye
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2022 2:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Anti Counterfeit
>
> It is a constant headache. I agree that visual and the steps you mention
> are good measures. I like x-ray too, because you can also often see the
> manufacturers internal markings which helps a lot. Ask your broker for
> their inspection report. Some of them have really good reports. Others, not
> so much.
>
> The other thing we are doing is control runs, where we build just two or
> three boards with components from a batch that might be suspect due to a
> new broker, age, or whatever. That way if there is a functional failure you
> at least avoid placing a few thousand bad parts. It is a nuisance, and you
> can't do it for every single part, but it can greatly reduce your risk.
>
> Best regards,
> RAYE RIVERA
> Quality Manager
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer
> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 10:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] Anti Counterfeit
>
> [Warning] This email comes from an external source. Be careful of any
> embedded links and attachments.
>
> Greetings-
>
> The only way I've been able to keep parts moving in this environment of
> part shortages and 72 week lead times is by constantly finding substitutes.
>
> The least appetizing substitute option is offshore brokers. We are
> revising our counterfeit detection strategy for minimizing cost/benefit
> (and time).
> My inclination is to do careful visual inspections, especially labels and
> lead finish, followed by solvent testing and a simulated Pb-free soldering
> profile on samples of the lot. I also compare the decapsulated die faces
> with known genuine parts.
>
> Is anybody else working this issue? Our old corporate document suggests
> XRF and x-ray inspection, but I'm not seeing the value in those. XRF is a
> great way to see if your system is Pb-free, but I'm more interested in
> whether the leads were soldered to previously which a thorough visual
> inspection should find.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wayne Thayer
>


--