With the Dynasolve 750 test, ACT submerges a device in the solvent for 45 minutes and then swabs it to observe for evidence of resurfacing under a microscope. It is not unusual for thermal coating to be found on a device but ACT does not automatically record this as a fail, although that certainly would speed up the process. Instead our next step is to investigate to see if the thermal coating may have been applied by the manufacturer during a certain time period that can be linked to the date code that we interpret from the part marking. This may require getting information and documentation directly from the manufacturer, which can take days.

Delidding Detective Work

When a device is delidded for internal inspection, ACT checks that the external and internal part markings are consistent. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for the two to differ. When this happens, instead of simply indicating a fail for the test, ACT must research the device further. Two common scenarios are when a manufacturer is fabless or when a manufacturer enters into a joint venture with another company to provide the die on a specific line. The only way to know this is to research the device and its production schedule to see if they can explain the apparent anomaly and then confirm that via the date code that can be extrapolated from the part markings.

When it comes to counterfeit testing, initial observations and findings often require additional research and interpretation before they can be reliably reported. The period of time this may take is not always predictable and this can occasionally delay results but, as you can see, there are times it is unavoidable—for accuracy sake.