• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 33 subscribers
  • Views 185 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

SN65176B: Possible counterfeit

Eric Valencia
Prodigy 10 points
Part Number: SN65176B

Dear all,

We recently received circuit boards that didn't pass our quality test. After closer inspection, we found that the IC: SN65176B has a different print on it. The logo consists of only the TI letters and a couple of concentric circles, which seems really strange to us. In addition, the quiscient current is significantly lower in comparison to the normal IC.

Unfortunately, we were unable to find any information regarding the labeling on the IC.

The reel, where the IC came from was purschased from Digikey and it has this label:

Could you able to tell from these images, if we are dealing with a counterfeit product.?

We would really like to hear your opinion on this matter.

Thank you in advance.

  • +1
    Guru 275410 points

    The marking change was announced in PCN# 20211123004.0.
    The design change was announced in PCN# 20210811000.1A. (As far as I know, the new design is CMOS, and thus a lower power consumption is to be expected.)

    Devices from DigiKey are very unlikely to be counterfeit.

  • +1
    TI__Mastermind 46607 points

    Hi Eric,

    The device is showing up in our system - the PCN numbers that Clemens listed do show when the marking change was made and are the correct documents (since you bought from Digikey - they should have gotten a PCN from us and you should be able to request it from them) 

    Devices from Digikey are unlikely to be counterfeit as they are one of our authorized distributors - it's always okay to check with us if you have doubts, but generally it's not  a problem you will see from them.  

    That being said - is the only quality test that is failing - is it that the ICC(q) value is lower than expected? 

    If that is the case - then the material is most likely okay, our redesign consumes less current typically than old (this has been found across a lot of our different devices) - our maximum ICC specs (which is how we define this value) have not changed because the datasheet represents the superset of all the material in circulation which includes older material. We also don't necessarily highlight this in the PCN or datasheet change tables because our "guaranteed" values (which are max/min) haven't changed  which means our general guidance hasn't changed because we have determined there is very little risk (essentially non-existent) that the changes are going to affect functionality of device in system - but triggering a ICT fail has happened so I imagine that is what is happening here. 

    Please let me know if any other spec is out of expectation and I will see what I can find out. 

    Best,

    Parker Dodson

  • 0 in reply to Clemens Ladisch
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hi Clemens,

    Thank you so much for your reply and explanation. The documents really helped us understand, why this component looks so different. We will be doing some testing to see if the funtionality of our circuit board remains the same.

  • 0 in reply to Parker Dodson
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hi Parker,

    Thank you for your detailed reply.

    During our quality inspection, we measure various values on the circuit board. One of these values is the total current consumption. If our device detects an unusual value, it triggers an alarm and the board is then separated for further analysis. In this analysis, we measured an Icc(q) of the SN65176 of 1,47 mA instead of the 23 mA that we expected from the old IC, which really worried us. Now we are less worried because we know that the IC is indeed an original TI component and the low current consumption is to be expected.

    We will be doing some tests to see if the functionality of the board is the same. Probably it is, but we want to be sure.

    I'll let you know, if we see something unusual.

  • +1 in reply to Eric Valencia
    TI__Mastermind 46607 points

    Hi Eric,

    Thanks for the reply - that sounds very much like similar flags we have seen from other using the new material on this device. Please let me know if you do find any issues and I will be happy to take a look at them for you!

    I am going to close this thread - but if any new information pops up you can come right back here and reply to this thread - it shouldn't lock for a while - and if for some reason it is locked you can always post a new question here as well. 

    Best,

    Parker Dodson