ESPNews just published the first article in a series on Date Code Practices. It mentions that one of the uses of date codes is to manage changes to an electronic component that does not affect “form, fit, or function.”
I have always felt as an engineer in a test laboratory that collaborating with the Manufacturer and voicing our opinions on device performance based on testing and based on specification review for possible improvement in the future is a major contribution to the electronic component field. Any changes or revisions can be modified in die manufacturing with detailed traceability reflecting date code criteria.
With increased dialogue and networking of intelligence information between these organizations in the electronic component recycling and supply chains, I feel that the SEERA will decrease the supply of counterfeit electronic components,
I just read an article on the Secure E-waste Export and Recycling Act (SEERA) at http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20170207/rep-cook-reintroduces-bill-to-make-it-tougher-to-counterfeit-us-electronics . This bill, introduced in the House of Representatives by Republican Paul Cook of California and Democrat Gene Green of Texas, aims to stop the export of e-waste to countries where it is used as source material for counterfeit electronics. Continue reading “Preventing counterfeiting through e-waste export control”
I just read the press release from the Digital Journal announcing Transparency Market Research’s Analysis of the Radiation Hardened Electronics Market. It comes as no surprise that high power semiconductors will be in critical demand in future aerospace space projects.
Semiconductors which are the “brains” inside electronic devices will be vital in controlling and converting power in electronic systems. These devices require extensive testing which includes screening and qualification to see if the components are susceptible to radiation damage in space application from high altitude flight around as well as nuclear reactors, particle accelerators, nuclear accidents and even nuclear warfare.
The screening and qualification of this product should include total dose ionizing, enhanced low-dose rate effect tests, neutron and proton displacement damage and single event effects. Furthermore, strict monitoring of the percent defective allowable ratio is paramount in the qualification of any future semiconductor product undergoing these radiation reliability tests.
If you get a chance, I recommend that you read “When it Comes to Counterfeit Part Prevention, Semantics Matter” – a blog post by Kevin Sink. He discusses the need for the revisions to the DFAR regulations that are currently underway.
The DFAR regulations are positive tools detailing how to purchase manage and dispose of components. In addition, the introduction of the AS6171 standard will be an important aid to quality-control testing and providing standardize techniques and practices.
Department of Defense published a new rule aimed at preventing counterfeit electronic parts from entering the military supply chain at any level.
The final version of the rule can be found in the Federal Register as: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts-Further Implementation (DFARS Case 2014-D005) https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/08/02/2016-17956/defense-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-detection-and-avoidance-of-counterfeit-electronic#h-4. The final version was drafted after a period of public commnet. It includes some changes in terminology to match industry standard terms and well as changes in requirements.
I strongly feel that AS6171 will be a paramount aid to the future of quality-control testing and providing standardize techniques and practices. In uncovering counterfeit electronic component product. I also feel participating in these mandatory requirements shows a good faith effort in the purchasing, managing and disposal of the electronic components in question.
This article describes the bill being considered by Congress that would amend existing export administration regulations. The change is that nonworking or non-tested used electronic items would be classified as electronic waste, so that they cannot be exported unless specific conditions are met.
I believe that one of the specific conditions that should be met for any electronic component that is disassembled and prepared for export is that the component be tested with a thorough risk mitigation and counterfeit test program with traceable paperwork results.
Electronic Products and Technology, ept.ca, one of Canada’s Leading Electronics websites published two articles that outline the risks of buying and using counterfeit components. The articles are Why Buy Authentic? The Case Against Counterfeit Products and Protecting Yourself from Counterfeit and Gray Market Components.
In addition to the practices and precautions mentioned in the articles, it is strongly recommended that any components that are purchased without an authentic manufacturers C of C Certificate of compliance should undergo Fraudulent/Counterfeit Electronic Parts: Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation testing in accordance with SAE Aerospace standard AS6081.
In Xerox Launches Printed Memory Products to Combat Counterfeiting, they describe two new printed electronic label products that can be used to track parts from factory to end-user.
I commend Xerox for this ground breaking endeavor in anti-counterfeit technology.
I feel that this rewritable memory is paramount in tracking a component’s authenticity and how it has been handled during distribution.
The cryptographic security is an inexpensive process and will be very difficult to copy.
I would like to commend JEDEC on issuing JESD243 last month. This standard sets best practices that will make a difference in the ongoing fight to mitigate counterfeit product distribution. You can read JEDEC’s announcement of the standard here.
Not only do I feel it is an outstanding resource to manufacturers but more importantly its defined standards of a product return policy as well as a return verification and prohibition on the restocking of confirmed counterfeit parts is a great asset in tackling the never ending epidemic of counterfeit product distribution.