Problem is "Nuclear Qualified" requires OEM only without spending
several hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a part certified AND a
design change approved. Passing radiation, seismic .... testing.
We even have problems when they change a part number without changing
the part itself.
pat
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Yuan-chia Joyce Koo wrote:
> 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]
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
