30 years? well, that is the project mgr's fault. it should be re-
design for a form, fit and function around 20 end of life assessment
and get a replacement (using new chip). you can always get the
original design prior to the end of life (especially, for the
critical item). you might have to go after red tape and get someone
to dig out from ware house storage, but prior to end of life, it got
be there... someone somewhere knew where the stuff is (not easy,-
went down to that road before).. after end of life, your "need to
know" are gone (not just the doc, but people). 35K might be the only
choice.... redesign and re-qual is a 50K+ add on. program mgr should
be the one to find balance.
jk
On Oct 16, 2014, at 12:28 AM, Patrick Goodyear wrote:
> OK Joyce, I will go along with that concerning counterfeit however
> in the Nuclear world we have components that are 30+ years old and
> failing. The manufacturers have long since stopped production and 20
> + years past support, and some are long gone. In order to keep
> the equipment running reliably requires reverse engineering to try
> and figure / design a suitable replacement, or have another
> engineering firm reinvent the wheel at huge revenue outlay, JT-21
> cost us $35000 each for a suitable replacement.
>
> I have went through the gambit with the fake Nichecon caps in '04
> vintage Dell computers.
>
> pat
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Yuan-chia Joyce Koo wrote:
>
>> Pat, I might be on the dark side: I do like proprietary hardware,
>> for example, ASIC always run faster than off the shelf
>> programmable chip (provide you have a good design team for ASIC),
>> low power, efficient foot print, package to tailor specific
>> environment... if you have volume to justify the design time and
>> cost, I would take an ASIC in a heart beat. as for guard the
>> secret to prevent reverse engineering, i think it is definitely
>> needed in current environment: copycat just ripe off all the good
>> engineering work easily. In addition, there are fakes around -
>> deal with in the past with a control chip that provides user
>> timing/feedback control of voltage/current adjusted output. The
>> "fake" actually went into the field to collect the chip and mount
>> on the unit sell them at a knock out price (of course the
>> reliability and calibration is completely off... but there are
>> cheapy chaps actually return some of faulty fake units for R and O
>> to the company ...), not until we figure out hard pot the IC on
>> to the unit in such a way it was almost impossible to take it off
>> without damage the unit.... The sales went up right after the
>> implementation of the anti-reverse engineering... from my 1st hand
>> experience, i would say the anti-reverse engineering is necessary,
>> it should be part of design review/marketing scheme to ensure your
>> tech leadership is not compromised. my 1.78 cents.. (By the way,
>> as for high price of replacement parts, I agree with you...
>> extended warrantee or service contract is much better if you have
>> a critical equipments fall into R and O requirement - like aircraft).
>> jk
>> On Oct 15, 2014, at 7:53 PM, Patrick Goodyear wrote:
>>
>>> As a technician I detest companies that provide proprietary
>>> hardware, the reason I don't own Apple products. Hp did this
>>> with their early test equipment, but the would annually publish a
>>> cheat sheet with their part numbers and a cross reference for
>>> products 5 years old.
>>> If a company is so dang tight-a--ed that they need to guard the
>>> secret, let them custom order the part with their part number or
>>> whatever on it, Westinghouse did this in the '70's with a lot of
>>> the equipment they ordered custom from Burr-Brown, so they made
>>> sure you ordered their replacement part at their $$$$$$ price,
>>> case in point OP amp modules designated A1 labeled JT-21.
>>>
>>> Usually unless the part is unique as long as one has knowledge of
>>> how it works it is easy to substitute a suitable replacement.
>>>
>>> Just my opinion.
>>>
>>> Pat Goodyear semi-retired control tech
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Craig Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a customer requirement to "apply an electronics grade
>>>> epoxy over
>>>> component x that will obscure part the part marking." They are
>>>> trying to
>>>> prevent reverse engineering of their product. There are of course a
>>>> multitude of epoxies, but dispensing onto small ICs, etc., can be a
>>>> challenge.
>>>>
>>>> I know about micro abrasion processes and such but I'm curious
>>>> how others
>>>> would handle this requirement?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Craig Sullivan
>>>>
>>>> Manufacturing Engineer / IT Administrator
>>>>
>>>> Phone: +1.607.266.0480 x115
>>>>
>>>> Fax: +1.607.266.0482
>>>>
>>>> Email: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>> Web: <http://www.mplinc.com/> www.mplinc.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MPL, Inc.
>>>>
>>>> 41 Dutch Mill Road | Ithaca | NY | 14850
>>>>
>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>> Confidentiality Notice:
>>>> This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information
>>>> which is the
>>>> property of MPL Incorporated, intended only for the use of the
>>>> intended
>>>> recipient(s). Unauthorized use or disclosure of this information is
>>>> prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please
>>>> immediately notify
>>>> MPL Incorporated and destroy any copies of this email. Receipt
>>>> of this
>>>> e-mail shall not be deemed a waiver by MPL Incorporated of any
>>>> privilege or
>>>> the confidential nature of the information.
>>>>
>>>> Export Control:
>>>> This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain
>>>> information
>>>> that is company confidential or privileged. Any technical data
>>>> in this
>>>> message may be exported only in accordance with the U.S.
>>>> International
>>>> Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Parts 120-130) or the Export
>>>> Administration Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774). Unauthorized
>>>> use is
>>>> strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
>>>> intended
>>>> recipient, or the person responsible for delivering to the intended
>>>> recipient, you should not read, copy, disclose or otherwise use
>>>> this
>>>> message. If you have received this email in error, please delete
>>>> it, and
>>>> advise the sender immediately.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>>> __ _
>>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>>> service.
>>>> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>>> __ _
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> __
>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>> service.
>>> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> __
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _
>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>> service.
>> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
>> [log in to unmask]
>> _________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
> service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
