Searching \ for '[EE]:Maxim truck hijacked' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=maxim+truck+hijacked
Search entire site for: 'Maxim truck hijacked'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:Maxim truck hijacked'
2005\05\23@151152 by Andrew Kieran

picon face

http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/hijackedparts/

This release on Maxim's web site confirms details of a truck
hijacking in which $2.2 million worth of marked, but untested,
Maxim parts were stolen.  You might want to warn your Buyers to
source their stuff only through authorized channels.  The
article reports that the stollen chips could have a failure rate
of 30%  !!

Andrew




________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag

2005\05\23@153936 by Bob Blick

face picon face
> This release on Maxim's web site confirms details of a truck
> hijacking in which $2.2 million worth of marked, but untested,
> Maxim parts were stolen.

500 lots of hot Maxim parts on eBay already:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7517614991



2005\05\23@155034 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
Well, If I were in maxim's PR department, I would also say that the stolen
items were defective. Whether they were or not. But, of course, we should
support honesty by ensuring we purchase through authorized channels.

---
James.



> {Original Message removed}

2005\05\23@160232 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 02:39 PM 5/23/2005, Bob Blick wrote:
> > This release on Maxim's web site confirms details of a truck
> > hijacking in which $2.2 million worth of marked, but untested,
> > Maxim parts were stolen.
>
>500 lots of hot Maxim parts on eBay already:
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7517614991

Are you implying that these are "hot" as in stolen?

2005\05\23@165240 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 03:11 PM 5/23/2005 -0400, you wrote:

>http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/hijackedparts/
>
>This release on Maxim's web site confirms details of a truck
>hijacking in which $2.2 million worth of marked, but untested,
>Maxim parts were stolen.

By a customer fed up with long lead times? ;-)

They've apparently been exported from Malaysia and are for sale elsewhere
in Asia.

http://in.biz.yahoo.com/050518/138/5yl3v.html

You might want to warn your Buyers to
source their stuff only through authorized channels.  The
article reports that the stollen chips could have a failure rate
of 30%  !!

"Could". Hmmm..

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
spam_OUTspeffTakeThisOuTspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->> Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff



2005\05\23@190732 by Mark Jordan

flavicon
face
On 23 May 2005 at 15:11, Andrew Kieran wrote:

>
> http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/hijackedparts/
>
> This release on Maxim's web site confirms details of a truck
> hijacking in which $2.2 million worth of marked, but untested,
> Maxim parts were stolen.  

       Yeah, sure. What a truck of 'marked but untested' parts
was doing outside the factory?


2005\05\23@193441 by wayne

flavicon
face
Maybe they make and test in two different locations??

Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu [piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu] On Behalf Of
Mark Jordan
Sent: 24 May 2005 00:07
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [EE]:Maxim truck hijacked

On 23 May 2005 at 15:11, Andrew Kieran wrote:

>
> http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/hijackedparts/
>
> This release on Maxim's web site confirms details of a truck
> hijacking in which $2.2 million worth of marked, but untested,
> Maxim parts were stolen.  

       Yeah, sure. What a truck of 'marked but untested' parts
was doing outside the factory?


2005\05\23@193747 by Bob Blick

face picon face
> At 02:39 PM 5/23/2005, Bob Blick wrote:
>>500 lots of hot Maxim parts on eBay already:
>>
>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7517614991
>
> Are you implying that these are "hot" as in stolen?

It was the ad itself that listed them as "hot"!

:) Bob



2005\05\24@013556 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Well, If I were in maxim's PR department, I would also say that the
> stolen
> items were defective.

Which is almost certainly what's happening here.


       RM

2005\05\24@034101 by Hulatt, Jon

picon face
If maxim have a failure rate of 30% of chips that are fully manufactured
then i'd say they need to get a better foundry.



> {Original Message removed}

2005\05\24@103659 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:07:16 -0300, Mark Jordan wrote:

> On 23 May 2005 at 15:11, Andrew Kieran wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/hijackedparts/
> >
> > This release on Maxim's web site confirms details of a truck
> > hijacking in which $2.2 million worth of marked, but untested,
> > Maxim parts were stolen.  
>
>        Yeah, sure. What a truck of 'marked but untested' parts
> was doing outside the factory?

Indeed - I always understood that marking happened after (or as part of) testing, because that's when
speed-ratings are determined and then marked.  

Maybe Maxim only has pass/fail tests rather than any sort of classification, but I'm still suspicious that
this is a damage-limitation exercise.  Apart form anything else, the only errors that should remain would have
been those introduced by the connection and encapsulation - the functioning of the chip would have been
established at the wafer stage, because packaging failed chips is an expensive cost for nothing.  So the
failure rate should be vastly lower than 30%, or they're doing very bad business!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\05\24@104947 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu]
>Sent: 24 May 2005 15:37
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [EE]:Maxim truck hijacked
>
>
 So the
>failure rate should be vastly lower than 30%, or they're doing
>very bad business!

Might explain the availability problems that their customers are
suffering!

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2005\05\24@113031 by Hulatt, Jon

picon face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesspamspam_OUTmit.edu On Behalf Of Michael Rigby-Jones
> Sent: 24 May 2005 15:49
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: RE: [EE]:Maxim truck hijacked
>
> Might explain the availability problems that their customers
> are suffering!
>
> Mike
>

If anyone needs some Maxim parts, i've got a truckload for sale... ;o)








(that's a joke by the way. no need to call the feds)

2005\05\24@145316 by Peter

picon face


On Tue, 24 May 2005, Hulatt, Jon wrote:

> If maxim have a failure rate of 30% of chips that are fully manufactured
> then i'd say they need to get a better foundry.

Or a better pr person who would have said 35.8% for 1.5% more
credibility.

Peter

2005\05\24@151651 by David Minkler

flavicon
face
I'm sure it's a real problem for them.  If the number is too low,
there's little hazard to the 'dark gray market' buyer.  If it's too
high, their insurance company won't pay off as well.  If it has too many
decimal places in it, they'll get laughed out of all the circles of
serious statisticians (and anybody else who is paying attention).  
Frankly, I think they called it too high for believability.

Dave

Peter wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2005\05\24@155118 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 12:18 PM 5/24/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>I'm sure it's a real problem for them.  If the number is too low, there's
>little hazard to the 'dark gray market' buyer.  If it's too high, their
>insurance company won't pay off as well.  If it has too many decimal
>places in it, they'll get laughed out of all the circles of serious
>statisticians (and anybody else who is paying attention).
>
>
>Dave

They said "The failure rate could be as high as 30%.". It "could" also be
as low as zero, perhaps.

TI seems eager to 'help': http://focus.ti.com/pdfs/logic/xref_ti-maxim1.pdf

>Frankly, I think they called it too high for believability.

Yes

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
@spam@speffKILLspamspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->> Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2005\05\24@161552 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
They did say "up to" 30%.

It is within the realm of reason to expect that perhaps out of the truck
load of parts that there are a couple of lots that are really bad. In other
words, the truck could have 99.99% good parts, but perhaps the lot of
MAXnnnn chips just had a _very_ bad day.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems


{Original Message removed}

2005\05\24@162928 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> If maxim have a failure rate of 30% of chips that are fully
> manufactured
> then i'd say they need to get a better foundry.

If I am not mistaken a chip is normally tested *before* it is put in a
housing, so 30% failure of *housed* chips would be rediculous.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\05\24@172025 by Mike Hord

picon face
> > If maxim have a failure rate of 30% of chips that are fully
> > manufactured
> > then i'd say they need to get a better foundry.
>
> If I am not mistaken a chip is normally tested *before* it is put in a
> housing, so 30% failure of *housed* chips would be rediculous.

Perhaps the 30% figure is related to handling?  I.e., clumsy crooks
dragging chips out the back of a truck can reasonably be expected
to trash ~30% of them?

I'd believe that, if they weren't yet packaged in such a manner as to
be shipped to distributors.  Maybe.

Or maybe it's a case of CYA.

Mike H.

2005\05\24@172933 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> Perhaps the 30% figure is related to handling?  I.e., clumsy crooks
> dragging chips out the back of a truck can reasonably be expected
> to trash ~30% of them?
>

Or perhaps they hijacked the truck hauling the rejects to the landfill? :-)

-Denny

2005\05\24@184944 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Denny Esterline wrote:
> Or perhaps they hijacked the truck hauling the rejects to the
> landfill? :-)

Hmm.  Sell your rejects to the insurance company.  Better than actually
dumping them in the landfill.  Works OK as long as Guido and Vinny can keep
their mouth shut and nobody asks too many questions about how a couple of
losers both ended up with shiny new cars.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\05\24@200856 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:20:24 -0500, Mike Hord wrote:

>...<
> Perhaps the 30% figure is related to handling?  I.e.,
clumsy crooks
> dragging chips out the back of a truck can reasonably
be expected
> to trash ~30% of them?
>
> I'd believe that, if they weren't yet packaged in such
a manner as to
> be shipped to distributors.  Maybe.
>
> Or maybe it's a case of CYA.

More likely FUD!  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\05\25@125259 by Peter

picon face

On Tue, 24 May 2005, David Minkler wrote:

> I'm sure it's a real problem for them.  If the number is too low, there's
> little hazard to the 'dark gray market' buyer.  If it's too high, their
> insurance company won't pay off as well.  If it has too many decimal places
> in it, they'll get laughed out of all the circles of serious statisticians
> (and anybody else who is paying attention).  Frankly, I think they called it
> too high for believability.

Maybe they know that the thieves do not work to ISO9000 standards and do
not employ static control measures while handling the stuff ;-) Anyway
30% is too round a number to announce for anything hi-tech. Surely they
can count to more decimals than that.

Peter

>> On Tue, 24 May 2005, Hulatt, Jon wrote:
>>
>>> If maxim have a failure rate of 30% of chips that are fully manufactured
>>> then i'd say they need to get a better foundry.
>>
>> Or a better pr person who would have said 35.8% for 1.5% more credibility.
>>
>> Peter

2005\05\25@140213 by SM Ling

picon face
Either they(Maxim) are under-estimating the intelligent level of the thief
or insulting the recepients of their news.

The theives or rather the robbers were desperate but certainly  not stupid.
Their favorites are Intel CPUs, somehow they managed to target the
passanger-cars driven by the FAEs or the Sale-engineers.  This tell how much
they know and how much they have researched.

Ling SM

> I'm sure it's a real problem for them.  If the number is too low, there's
> little hazard to the 'dark gray market' buyer.  If it's too high, their
> insurance company won't pay off as well.  If it has too many decimal
places
> in it, they'll get laughed out of all the circles of serious statisticians
> (and anybody else who is paying attention).  Frankly, I think they called
it
> too high for believability.

2005\05\25@145032 by Philip Pemberton

face picon face
In message <KILLspam5.1.1.5.2.20050524154328.04d56450KILLspamspammail.interlog.com>>          Spehro Pefhany <RemoveMEspeffTakeThisOuTspaminterlog.com> wrote:

> TI seems eager to 'help': http://focus.ti.com/pdfs/logic/xref_ti-maxim1.pdf

"Here ya go. Just in case you don't want to risk ordering junk, here's our
cross-reference list..."

ROFL!

Later.
--
Phil.                              | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB, 6GB,
spamBeGonephilpemspamBeGonespamphilpem.me.uk              | ViewFinder, 10BaseT Ethernet, 2-slice,
http://www.philpem.me.uk/          | 48xCD, ARCINv6c IDE, SCSI
... I will not steal this tagline, it eez scratched.

2005\05\25@145533 by Philip Pemberton

face picon face
In message <002901c560b2$df41e510$0300a8c0@main>
         TakeThisOuTolin_piclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTembedinc.com (Olin Lathrop) wrote:

> Works OK as long as Guido and Vinny can keep
> their mouth shut and nobody asks too many questions about how a couple of
> losers both ended up with shiny new cars.

I can see it now..

Scene: dark alley alongside factory building

"Hey, boy. You's one o' them electronics engineering guys"
"Um, yeah...."
"Ya wanna buy some MAX232s? 30c on the dollar.."
"Not really"
"C'mon.. Ya know's ya wants to..."

:)

Later.
--
Phil.                              | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB, 6GB,
RemoveMEphilpemspamTakeThisOuTphilpem.me.uk              | ViewFinder, 10BaseT Ethernet, 2-slice,
http://www.philpem.me.uk/          | 48xCD, ARCINv6c IDE, SCSI
... Open mouth, insert foot, echo internationally.

2005\05\26@002112 by Jonathan Hallameyer

picon face
On 5/23/05, Bob Blick <bblickEraseMEspam.....sonic.net> wrote:
> > At 02:39 PM 5/23/2005, Bob Blick wrote:
> >>500 lots of hot Maxim parts on eBay already:
> >>
> >>cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7517614991
> >
> > Are you implying that these are "hot" as in stolen?
>
> It was the ad itself that listed them as "hot"!
>
> :) Bob
But they are in the tape... Would Maxim make the chips, package them
ship them for testing, open them up, test them and then re package
them? I would think that they would have some sort of container that
they can reuse rather than tape and reel.

--
Jonathan Hallameyer

2005\05\26@015729 by Chetan Bhargava

picon face
I completely agree as most manufacturers test the part and then mark
them.  That's how they separate the low power part from the regular
part as the dies are the same.

I know that Atmel does that as I have taken a tour of their facility
where they test and mark the parts.

Regards,

--
Chetan Bhargava
Web: http://www.bhargavaz.net
Blog: http://microz.blogspot.com


On 5/23/05, Mark Jordan <EraseMEmarkspamcpovo.net> wrote:
>
>        Yeah, sure. What a truck of 'marked but untested' parts
> was doing outside the factory?

2005\05\26@022441 by Jinx

face picon face
> I know that Atmel does that as I have taken a tour of their facility
> where they test and mark the parts.

Just curious - harking back to the question of trying over-clocking
an -04 PIC (even though it might actually be quite happy running
at > 4MHz as a -20 reject)

How intensive is batch testing ? Say you have a bunch of micros
made from several wafers. Presumably, ideally, each wafer and
subsequent layers would be made of homogeneous material. So

(1) if you're working with known, controlled materials why does a
batch or part fail to meet spec in the first place

(2) if one piece from a batch or base wafer fails, can you assume
that the rest of that batch/wafer also will fail. Surely it can't be
necessary to test every piece in a high-volume product

(3) therefore is a selected sample rigorously tested under all conditions
and that assumption made, for whatever reason, for the rest of them

2005\05\26@023133 by emmanueld_sorreta

flavicon
face
part 1 2452 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=us-ascii
The thieves have been caught but the chips are still at large.

Regards.

E. D. Sorreta
(See attached file: Four held over theft of computer chips.txt)


                                                                                                         
                     Chetan Bhargava                                                                      
                     <cbhargava@gmail.        To:       "Microcontroller discussion list - Public."      
                     com>                      <RemoveMEpiclistEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu>                                          
                     Sent by:                 cc:                                                        
                     piclist-bounces@m        Subject:  Re: [EE]:Maxim truck hijacked                    
                     it.edu                                                                              
                                                                                                         
                                                                                                         
                     26/05/2005 13:57                                                                    
                     Please respond to                                                                    
                     "Microcontroller                                                                    
                     discussion list -                                                                    
                     Public."                                                                            
                                                                                                         
                                                                                                         




I completely agree as most manufacturers test the part and then mark
them.  That's how they separate the low power part from the regular
part as the dies are the same.

I know that Atmel does that as I have taken a tour of their facility
where they test and mark the parts.

Regards,

--
Chetan Bhargava
Web: http://www.bhargavaz.net
Blog: http://microz.blogspot.com


On 5/23/05, Mark Jordan <RemoveMEmarkspam_OUTspamKILLspamcpovo.net> wrote:
>
>        Yeah, sure. What a truck of 'marked but untested' parts
> was doing outside the factory?

2005\05\26@061210 by vasile surducan

picon face
On 5/24/05, Spehro Pefhany <RemoveMEspeffTakeThisOuTspamspaminterlog.com> wrote:
> At 12:18 PM 5/24/2005 -0700, you wrote:
> >I'm sure it's a real problem for them.  If the number is too low, there's
> >little hazard to the 'dark gray market' buyer.  If it's too high, their
> >insurance company won't pay off as well.  If it has too many decimal
> >places in it, they'll get laughed out of all the circles of serious
> >statisticians (and anybody else who is paying attention).
> >
> >
> >Dave
>
> They said "The failure rate could be as high as 30%.". It "could" also be
> as low as zero, perhaps.

 I'm affraid I see too optimistic thoughts. I can tell you for sure
for my own experience that at least  MAX477 and MAX1186 have some
interesting failure rate...
So, a full truck with small parts will have more. As low as zero is impossible.

Vasile

2005\05\26@073133 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

face picon face
Jinx wrote :

> How intensive is batch testing ? Say you have a bunch of micros
> made from several wafers. Presumably, ideally, each wafer and
> subsequent layers would be made of homogeneous material. So
>
> (1) if you're working with known, controlled materials why does a
> batch or part fail to meet spec in the first place
>
> (2) if one piece from a batch or base wafer fails, can you assume
> that the rest of that batch/wafer also will fail. Surely it can't be
> necessary to test every piece in a high-volume product
>
> (3) therefore is a selected sample rigorously tested under
> all conditions
> and that assumption made, for whatever reason, for the rest of them

I can't see why this would be any different from producing just
about anything. Statistical inspection was developed during
WW-II when the US military found out that they didn't had the
resources (mostly time) to test and inspect *every* bomb made.

The methods developed are today known as "MIL-STD-105D".
Google for that, and the first hit is :
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section2/pmc231.htm

In short, what you do is to first define an AQL for your product.
AQL = "Acceptable Quality Level", or the acceptable %-ige of
defective products leaving the production. Say an AQL = 0.01
says that one defective out of 10.000 is "OK".

Then, using your AQL, you look up in the MIL-STD 105D tables
(today computerized, but first on paper) to get your sampling
lot size and the number of accepted rejects in the lot.

Let's say that you have 100.000 parts batch. The tables could then
tell you to sample 100 parts, and that 1 error is OK, but if you
get 2 in the sample lot, the whole 100.00 batch is rejected.

One thing that is *very* important is that you use a as
random sampling from the whole lot as possible. Special
random number tables was printed that you used to both
decide from which box (or whatever) you should pick your
samples, and also at what time of day you should make
the sample.

I can't see any reason why you can't use statistical sampling
inspection on chips also.

Jan-Erik.



2005\05\26@081355 by Dave Lag

picon face
I understood that the edges of the wafer had worse yield that the centre?
D

Jinx wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2005\05\26@083454 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> I can't see why this would be any different from producing just
> about anything. Statistical inspection was developed during
> WW-II when the US military found out that they didn't had the
> resources (mostly time) to test and inspect *every* bomb made.

Besides, how does one do complete functional testing of things like bombs
and fuses?  BOOOM - 397 good 7 bad.  BOOOM - 398 good 7 bad.  Pffft - 398
good 8 bad....


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\05\26@090202 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Besides, how does one do complete functional testing of
> things like bombs
> and fuses?  BOOOM - 397 good 7 bad.  BOOOM - 398 good 7 bad.  
> Pffft - 398
> good 8 bad....

Now if only all weapons manufacturers could be forced to use that
approach - and testing must of course be done on premises!

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\05\26@103821 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspamspamspamBeGonemit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu]
>Sent: 26 May 2005 13:36
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [EE]:Maxim truck hijacked
>
>
>Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>> I can't see why this would be any different from producing
>just about
>> anything. Statistical inspection was developed during WW-II when the
>> US military found out that they didn't had the resources
>(mostly time)
>> to test and inspect *every* bomb made.
>
>Besides, how does one do complete functional testing of things
>like bombs and fuses?  BOOOM - 397 good 7 bad.  BOOOM - 398
>good 7 bad.  Pffft - 398 good 8 bad....

Coffee meets keyboard....

Olin, you've come out with some gems recently ;)

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2005\05\26@104408 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 07:35 AM 5/26/2005, Olin Lathrop wrote:
>Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>I can't see why this would be any different from producing just
>>about anything. Statistical inspection was developed during
>>WW-II when the US military found out that they didn't had the
>>resources (mostly time) to test and inspect *every* bomb made.
>
>Besides, how does one do complete functional testing of things like bombs
>and fuses?  BOOOM - 397 good 7 bad.  BOOOM - 398 good 7 bad.  Pffft - 398
>good 8 bad....

Unfortunately, sometimes it's worse than that.
Look up the history of the magnetic exploder in WWII US torpedoes.
We might as well have sent them out with empty torpedoes for a while,
till the sub captains started pulling the appropriate plugs, and
finally it got fixed.

2005\05\27@015817 by Dmitriy Kiryashov

picon face
Hi Bob.

1. Is it wrong understanding that most expensive part of
the small to medium sized chip is the package itself not
the silicon dice ?

2. If the package is the most expensive part in the total cost
of the chip who whould be stupid enough to pack untested silicon,
labeling it and then ship to other facility for "final testing" ?

Maxim PR should hire people with brains not with tongues and
attitude to properly handle such situations. No ifs and buts
and same applies to security in Malasia.


WBR Dmitry.

PS.
Kind of curious how Malasian police have determined that
hijacked truck indeed left Malasia already ? It might very
well be sitting on next door factory for re-labeling to
"certified" Maxim released dates.



Bob Ammerman wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2005\05\27@020019 by Dmitriy Kiryashov

picon face
Good point Olin :)


Olin Lathrop wrote:
>
> Hmm.  Sell your rejects to the insurance company.  Better than actually
> dumping them in the landfill.  Works OK as long as Guido and Vinny can keep
> their mouth shut and nobody asks too many questions about how a couple of
> losers both ended up with shiny new cars.

2005\05\27@021538 by Jinx

face picon face
> Maxim PR should hire people with brains not with tongues
> and attitude to properly handle such situations. No ifs and buts
> and same applies to security in Malasia.
>
>
> WBR Dmitry.

Dmitry, if "ifs and buts" were fruit and nuts, we'd all have a
Merry Christmas ;-)

Often it takes something like this to shake a company up -
like people who put an alarm in AFTER they've been burgled

2005\05\27@044237 by vasile surducan

picon face
On 5/27/05, Jinx <joecolquittSTOPspamspamspam_OUTclear.net.nz> wrote:
> > Maxim PR should hire people with brains not with tongues
> > and attitude to properly handle such situations. No ifs and buts
> > and same applies to security in Malasia.
> >
> >
> > WBR Dmitry.
>
> Dmitry, if "ifs and buts" were fruit and nuts, we'd all have a
> Merry Christmas ;-)
>
> Often it takes something like this to shake a company up -
> like people who put an alarm in AFTER they've been burgled

Joe,
 As an alarm designer (fortunately it was a long time ago) I can tell you
it's useless to arm the alarm. There is no alarm design which can't be tricked.
And BTW, only in NZ is comming the "bad Santa's" We heve here only
good Santa's, dogs are walking with sausages in the tails and all we
are happy.
:)

Vasile

2005\05\27@062905 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
{Quote hidden}

My guess is that nobody packaged untested silicon, but rather that
post-packaging testing wasn't done. I would expect that some small
percentage of parts are messed up at the packaging stage, and perhaps this
happens in a bursty manner (oops, there was a spot of dust on the lens of
the robot vision system that was controlling the wire bonding...) and so a
particular batch of a particular component could have problems.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems


{Quote hidden}

>> {Original Message removed}

2005\05\27@083140 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>My guess is that nobody packaged untested silicon, but
>rather that post-packaging testing wasn't done. I would
>expect that some small percentage of parts are messed
>up at the packaging stage, and perhaps this happens in
>a bursty manner (oops, there was a spot of dust on the
>lens of the robot vision system that was controlling the
>wire bonding...) and so a particular batch of a particular
>component could have problems.

Sounds reasonable. I guess one could also get a percentage where the bond
could be good, but the pressure of forcing the epoxy into the mould either
breaks a bond, or finds a weakness in the wire at some point other than the
bond, causing a break.

As to shipping packaged but untested parts, I guess that the bare chip
testing is not full parametric testing, but basic functional tests, and that
the full parametric tests occur at a plant with labour which has a higher
level of technical expertise (read more expensive) than the assembly plant,
so shipping assembled, but non-parametrically tested, chips may well be a
viable economic way of doing things.

2005\05\27@095500 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Spehro Pefhany wrote:

> They said "The failure rate could be as high as 30%.". It "could" also be
> as low as zero, perhaps.

They also didn't say 30% of what... I'm always surprised how much
discussion can happen about the actual value of a percentage without
anybody knowing the base of that percentage.

If I buy one part and it's defective, my failure rate of that part is 100%
(at least when using the "popular" meaning of % -- keep in mind that we're
not really talking about statistics here :). The failure rate of the lot
this part was in probably was something else, the failure rate of the waver
batch, of the whole foundry, of the packaging machine, of the manufacturer
overall, ... you get the idea. All different average failure rate
percentages.

So what's the reference of the 30%? The truck load? Give me a break. I
don't think they have serious statistics about defect averages in truck
loads... :)

Then the "could be as high as"... Employing statistics, for any finite
selection with finite error rates you get a non-0 probability that there is
a failure rate of 100%. And you get a non-0 probability that there is a
failure rate up to 30%. So in precise statistical terms, they didn't say
squat and just stated the obvious -- yes, the error rate could be as high
as 30%, which is something that can be said to have a probability of
greater than 0 for any selection of components. To become real, non-obvious
information, they would have to have included some more details about their
statistic assumptions.

Gerhard

2005\05\27@100144 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 08:54 AM 5/27/2005, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
> > They said "The failure rate could be as high as 30%.". It "could" also be
> > as low as zero, perhaps.
>
>They also didn't say 30% of what... I'm always surprised how much
>discussion can happen about the actual value of a percentage without
>anybody knowing the base of that percentage.
>
>If I buy one part and it's defective, my failure rate of that part is 100%
>(at least when using the "popular" meaning of % -- keep in mind that we're
>not really talking about statistics here :).

Indeed, your sample size it statistically meaningless.


>Then the "could be as high as"... Employing statistics, for any finite
>selection with finite error rates you get a non-0 probability that there is
>a failure rate of 100%.

I think it's obvious that the high defect rate quoted was intended to
deter black market purchasers.

Interesting opportunity for their competition though, to have a look
at "raw" output and what Max's yield rates are, if they are truly
untested parts, which seems doubtful.


2005\05\28@082040 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Dave VanHorn wrote:

> I think it's obvious that the high defect rate quoted was intended to
> deter black market purchasers.

Exactly.... which makes all the discussion about what it means basically
meaningless. Technically, it means nothing -- no yield rate for tested,
semi-tested or untested batches, wavers, truck loads, nothing. Pure
marketing.

> Interesting opportunity for their competition though, to have a look at
> "raw" output and what Max's yield rates are, if they are truly untested
> parts, which seems doubtful.

Not really an interesting opportunity... probably doesn't make much sense
to compare your competitor's marketing noise with your statistical figures.

Gerhard

2005\05\28@103337 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
> > Interesting opportunity for their competition though, to have a look at
> > "raw" output and what Max's yield rates are, if they are truly untested
> > parts, which seems doubtful.
>
>Not really an interesting opportunity... probably doesn't make much sense
>to compare your competitor's marketing noise with your statistical figures.

I meant by actually getting some of the raw output.

2005\05\29@084946 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Dave VanHorn wrote:

>>> Interesting opportunity for their competition though, to have a look at
>>> "raw" output and what Max's yield rates are, if they are truly
>>> untested parts, which seems doubtful.
>>
>>Not really an interesting opportunity... probably doesn't make much sense
>>to compare your competitor's marketing noise with your statistical figures.
>
> I meant by actually getting some of the raw output.

Oh, I missed that... but then there's the big "if" you noted. So probably
not even there an opportunity. It seems the only opportunity this presented
was to have a peek at Maxim's marketing strategies in an unusual situation
-- and to get some directed help from competitors regarding compatible
replacements :)

Gerhard

2005\05\29@204629 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Or, you could just warn that there are counterfeit parts out there and
advise people to buy Maxim parts only through Maxim dealers

       http://www.maxim-ic.com/sales/counterfeit_parts.cfm


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...