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