TECHNET Archives

October 2015

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Wayne Thayer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Wayne Thayer <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 9 Oct 2015 18:57:13 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
I understand this as a possibility, but I am used to seeing the scratches
having what looks like shattered glass at the edge of the indentation. And
I've never seen the segmented kind of features. And usually you can see a
lot of differences in the focus plane.

But yes, I agree that the parentage of this part needs to be certified!

Wayn

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joyce Koo
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 2:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Ropy grunge in IC

yap, like P-doped glass passivation scratch to me. (zig zag no
crystallography fracture, so it is not die cracking... ;-).
jk
> I'm an old semiconductor reliability engineer (and this die looks like 
> it's old technology too :) ) - that looks like a scratch on the die. 
> So either it was untested by the manufacturer or it was scrap acquired 
> by dumpster diving (or some other nefarious method), packaged and sold 
> as a functional device...i.e. counterfeit.
>
> Mike
>


______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2