Small review of LCSC

[wraper]

Most counterfeits (especially from Asia) are done by the same contract manufacturer that made the originals.

Bullshit. They are not made at the same factories. And please don't be another one among those who spread this stupid myth. Counterfeits often can be spotted by looks, like incorrect logo, weird font, sanded surface, blacktopping, differences in package, welding joint on leads (used parts with new terminals welded on). Of course there is no guarantee and genuine parts can be a bit different if made at different time or at different factory.

In short, even if it looks and functions 100% identical it could still be counterfeit.

Usually they don't. They appear to work fine on the first glance but there may be completely different die inside. Like weaker MOSFET or opamp with worse specs. Vreg which cannot supply rated current and so on. Often specialized ICs are specially made clones, but die is quite different, and often work unreliably or have some quirks. Also there are a lot of salvaged used parts made to look like brand new.
https://www.smta.org/chapters/files/SMTA_Great_Lakes_Chapter_Counterfeit_Components_-Integra_Mark_Marshall_(4-11_General)_handout_2.pdf
https://zeptobars.com/en/read/Ti-555-NE555-real-vs-face-china-chinese

[Mr. Scram]

Trying to spot fakes by looks isn't going to work. ICs are made in batches, often years apart, sometimes by completely different fabs in different countries.

Most counterfeits (especially from Asia) are done by the same contract manufacturer that made the originals. Since they have all the machines and workers set up, they'll just run them a few days longer to make a batch for themselves.

In short, even if it looks and functions 100% identical it could still be counterfeit. Yet it could look different and the specs be a bit off and be completely authentic.

If you look at counterfeit analysis you'll find that almost all counterfeits are significantly different chips under the hood. That doesn't coincide with the claim that counterfeits are ghost shift components.

[LaserTazerPhaser]

Here are the counterfeit objects.

https://pasteboard.co/HVIpXum.jpg

https://pasteboard.co/HVIs7K8.jpg

The issue with LCSC part is its Rdson is far below the Rdson specified in the datasheet in this case 5 amps was passed thru the drain - of the LCSC iteration and 32mVDS was obtained yeilding 6.4mR and remained cold while the mouser iteration got really hot really fast on 4 amps unlike the LCSC part which probably means its not using the same die as the authentic part. Since the thermal impedance is not identical to the specs. This likely means the LCSC part will not perform to most other specs listed in the datasheet also.

The assembly lot code of the LCSC part does not adhere to spec also.

https://nofile.io/f/ouvpOo6wFRQ/partmarking.pdf

This is probably why the laser markings are not identical to authentic parts. They do not appear to be authentic parts.

[thm_w]

Here are the counterfeit objects.

https://pasteboard.co/HVIpXum.jpg https://pasteboard.co/HVIs7K8.jpg

The issue with LCSC part is its Rdson is far below the Rdson specified in the datasheet in this case 5 amps was passed thru the drain - of the LCSC iteration and 32mVDS was obtained yeilding 6.4mR and remained cold while the mouser iteration got really hot really fast on 4 amps unlike the LCSC part which probably means its not using the same die as the authentic part. Since the thermal impedance is not identical to the specs. This likely means the LCSC part will not perform to most other specs listed in the datasheet also.

The assembly lot code of the LCSC part does not adhere to spec also. https://nofile.io/f/ouvpOo6wFRQ/partmarking.pdf

This is probably why the laser markings are not identical to authentic parts. They do not appear to be authentic parts.

Will you contact LCSC and let us know what they say?

Link: https://lcsc.com/product-detail/MOSFET_Infineon-Technologies_IRFZ34NPBF_Infineon-Technologies-IRFZ34NPBF_C21066.html

There is no minimum spec for Rds on, but you are right that it seems a bit low (spec is 40mOhm max)

[wraper]

The issue with LCSC part is its Rdson is far below the Rdson specified in the datasheet in this case 5 amps was passed thru the drain - of the LCSC iteration and 32mVDS was obtained yeilding 6.4mR and remained cold while the mouser iteration got really hot really fast on 4 amps unlike the LCSC part which probably means its not using the same die as the authentic part. Since the thermal impedance is not identical to the specs. This likely means the LCSC part will not perform to most other specs listed in the datasheet also.

For me rather sounds you screwed up measurement. Parts are too identical internally for me to believe this right away.

The assembly lot code of the LCSC part does not adhere to spec also.

Exactly like Mouser part, though. And it's not like there is wrong lot code, it's just written together instead of on opposite sides.

[LaserTazerPhaser]

The issue with LCSC part is its Rdson is far below the Rdson specified in the datasheet in this case 5 amps was passed thru the drain - of the LCSC iteration and 32mVDS was obtained yeilding 6.4mR and remained cold while the mouser iteration got really hot really fast on 4 amps unlike the LCSC part which probably means its not using the same die as the authentic part. Since the thermal impedance is not identical to the specs. This likely means the LCSC part will not perform to most other specs listed in the datasheet also.

For me rather sounds you screwed up measurement. Parts are too identical internally for me to believe this right away.

The assembly lot code of the LCSC part does not adhere to spec also.

Exactly like Mouser part, though. And it's not like there is wrong lot code, it's just written together instead of on opposite sides.

Not sure how the measurements were improper. It was 10vGS & the DMM measured ~32mVDS

The lot codes dont appear to begin with letters according to the spec sheet.

[wraper]

The issue with LCSC part is its Rdson is far below the Rdson specified in the datasheet in this case 5 amps was passed thru the drain - of the LCSC iteration and 32mVDS was obtained yeilding 6.4mR and remained cold while the mouser iteration got really hot really fast on 4 amps unlike the LCSC part which probably means its not using the same die as the authentic part. Since the thermal impedance is not identical to the specs. This likely means the LCSC part will not perform to most other specs listed in the datasheet also.

For me rather sounds you screwed up measurement. Parts are too identical internally for me to believe this right away.

The assembly lot code of the LCSC part does not adhere to spec also.

Exactly like Mouser part, though. And it's not like there is wrong lot code, it's just written together instead of on opposite sides.

Not sure how the measurements were improper. It was 10vGS & the DMM measured ~32mVDS

The lot codes dont appear to begin with letters according to the spec sheet.

I guess that current was incorrect or you made short between the terminals. In any case I suggest repeating the measurement. Also you could measure gate capacitance.  There is nothing written about lot code starting from digit. Scroll down to page 7 and look on the lot code starting with letter.

[LaserTazerPhaser]

The issue with LCSC part is its Rdson is far below the Rdson specified in the datasheet in this case 5 amps was passed thru the drain - of the LCSC iteration and 32mVDS was obtained yeilding 6.4mR and remained cold while the mouser iteration got really hot really fast on 4 amps unlike the LCSC part which probably means its not using the same die as the authentic part. Since the thermal impedance is not identical to the specs. This likely means the LCSC part will not perform to most other specs listed in the datasheet also.

For me rather sounds you screwed up measurement. Parts are too identical internally for me to believe this right away.

The assembly lot code of the LCSC part does not adhere to spec also.

Exactly like Mouser part, though. And it's not like there is wrong lot code, it's just written together instead of on opposite sides.

Not sure how the measurements were improper. It was 10vGS & the DMM measured ~32mVDS

The lot codes dont appear to begin with letters according to the spec sheet.

I guess that current was incorrect or you made short between the terminals. In any case I suggest repeating the measurement. Also you could measure gate capacitance.  There is nothing written about lot code starting from digit. Scroll down to page 7 and look on the lot code starting with letter.

Did you note the clean rectangular die bonding of the mouser iteration as opposed to the sloppy LCSC die bonding?

Seems you were correct the measurements were off proably what I originally measured was more.

I obtained 0.151vDS with the DMM and the power supply says 0.22v

power supply voltage = 0.044R
DMM voltage = 0.0302R

The DMM is more reliable in this case. The parts are legitimate.

https://pasteboard.co/HVUNdfZ.jpg

https://pasteboard.co/HVULbrW.jpg

I could have shorted something with the alligators in the other readings.

[wraper]

Did you note the clean rectangular die bonding of the mouser iteration as opposed to the sloppy LCSC die bonding?

It's just a piece of solder or solder paste applied in rectangular shape on the tab and then reflowed. In mouser part solder did not flow beyond it's original shape, in LCSC part it flowed a little bit in the middle. There is nothing wrong about it and there was no solder mask to stop the flow. Not to say more often than not solder flows into irregular shape than stays as neat rectangular. I would guess that if you take apart some more of mouser and LCSC parts, you could find both types in both batches.

[LaserTazerPhaser]

It would be nice if the not well known semiconductor brands actually made spice models for their products.

Many of them are excellent products.

[Axk]

Ordered PCBS together with parts from LCSC came fine in one package, EMS, took about 2 weeks.
The LCSC order changed to Shipped one day after the PCB order.

[cdev]

With reclaimed genuine parts, if they were tested adequately (might be very very difficult, though to do that) and clearly sold as reclaimed, and marked some way, I wouldn't have any problem with it.

If they made it possible for value-conscious people to use something again that otherwise would go into a landfill-good.

How to prevent them being sold as new? Only deal with manufacturers designated authorized vendors.

Like on ebay, lots of parts are sold as used. They usually work fine, and are very useful for people like me.

[LaserTazerPhaser]

does doesn't look authentic https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Others_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.html MXG series doesn't have wide mounts

compare datasheets

LCSC: https://datasheet.lcsc.com/szlcsc/1901241640_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.pdf
https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Others_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.html

Rubycon: http://www.rubycon.co.jp/en/catalog/e_pdfs/aluminum/e_MXG.pdf
https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=450MXG820

[wraper]

does doesn't look authentic https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Others_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.html MXG series doesn't have wide mounts

compare datasheets

LCSC: https://datasheet.lcsc.com/szlcsc/1901241640_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.pdf
https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Others_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.html

Rubycon: http://www.rubycon.co.jp/en/catalog/e_pdfs/aluminum/e_MXG.pdf
https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=450MXG820

Are you suggesting fake datasheet? Not to say it is for particular part number, not whole series.

[LaserTazerPhaser]

does doesn't look authentic https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Others_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.html MXG series doesn't have wide mounts

compare datasheets

LCSC: https://datasheet.lcsc.com/szlcsc/1901241640_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.pdf
https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Others_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.html

Rubycon: http://www.rubycon.co.jp/en/catalog/e_pdfs/aluminum/e_MXG.pdf
https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=450MXG820

Are you suggesting fake datasheet? Not to say it is for particular part number, not whole series.

Have a look at any reputable retailer and you wont find that particular part# listed on lcsc also the lcsc datasheet is very clumsy just look at its dimensioning and compare it to any other rubycon dimensioning very dissimilar the parts from that series do not have the same lead types found on lcsc listing.

Everything received from LCSC seems to be absolutely authentic but that particular capacitor seems non authentic.

[wraper]

does doesn't look authentic https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Others_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.html MXG series doesn't have wide mounts

compare datasheets

LCSC: https://datasheet.lcsc.com/szlcsc/1901241640_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.pdf
https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Others_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.html

Rubycon: http://www.rubycon.co.jp/en/catalog/e_pdfs/aluminum/e_MXG.pdf
https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=450MXG820

Are you suggesting fake datasheet? Not to say it is for particular part number, not whole series.

Have a look at any reputable retailer and you wont find that particular part# listed on lcsc also the lcsc datasheet is very clumsy just look at its dimensioning and compare it to any other rubycon dimensioning very dissimilar the parts from that series do not have the same lead types found on lcsc listing.

Everything received from LCSC seems to be absolutely authentic but that particular capacitor seems non authentic.

It's exactly the same part with different terminals riveted on, no difference internally. At least it's not rare to find genuine capacitors with dimensions not listed in datasheets. Also you can order customized capacitors if your order is big enough. I don't see anything wrong with specification sheet, it's not a full datasheet for series.

[LaserTazerPhaser]

does doesn't look authentic https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Others_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.html MXG series doesn't have wide mounts

compare datasheets

LCSC: https://datasheet.lcsc.com/szlcsc/1901241640_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.pdf
https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Others_Rubycon-450MXG820MLCALN35X60_C365690.html

Rubycon: http://www.rubycon.co.jp/en/catalog/e_pdfs/aluminum/e_MXG.pdf
https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=450MXG820

Are you suggesting fake datasheet? Not to say it is for particular part number, not whole series.

Have a look at any reputable retailer and you wont find that particular part# listed on lcsc also the lcsc datasheet is very clumsy just look at its dimensioning and compare it to any other rubycon dimensioning very dissimilar the parts from that series do not have the same lead types found on lcsc listing.

Everything received from LCSC seems to be absolutely authentic but that particular capacitor seems non authentic.

It's exactly the same part with different terminals riveted on, no difference internally. At least it's not rare to find genuine capacitors with dimensions not listed in datasheets. Also you can order customized capacitors if your order is big enough. I don't see anything wrong with specification sheet, it's not a full datasheet for series.

This capacitor was likely custom made for a specific order by rubycon or its a counterfeit, the dimensioning is very clumsy and its terminals dont fit the product series.

[wraper]

This capacitor was likely custom made for a specific order by rubycon or its a counterfeit, the dimensioning is very clumsy and its terminals dont fit the product series.

Sorry, but you claim some nonsense here. It's not any bit more clumsy than in datasheets you linked. And who in sane mind would make fake datasheets to begin with?

[LaserTazerPhaser]

Obtained these diodes and noticed their Forward Current Derating Curve is not legitimate. https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Diodes-General-Purpose_S10MC_C169472.html

Seems the manufacturer hasn't characterized this part.

[wraper]

Obtained these diodes and noticed their Forward Current Derating Curve is not legitimate. https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Diodes-General-Purpose_S10MC_C169472.html

Seems the manufacturer hasn't characterized this part.

What's not legitimate there? And it's not about characterization.

[LaserTazerPhaser]

Obtained these diodes and noticed their Forward Current Derating Curve is not legitimate. https://lcsc.com/product-detail/Diodes-General-Purpose_S10MC_C169472.html

Seems the manufacturer hasn't characterized this part.

What's not legitimate there? And it's not about characterization.

That SMT diode features a stud mounted diode property in which it works at high temperatures and needs little derating.

[wraper]

That SMT diode features a stud mounted diode property in which it works at high temperatures and needs little derating.

Excuse me, but do you imply that diode does not need derating when case temperature goes above 100^oC, and can work at full current even at 150^oC?
How about this one? Is it not legitimate too? https://eu.mouser.com/datasheet/2/115/SBRT10U60D1-756895.pdf
EDIT: I guess I understood it otherwise.

[LaserTazerPhaser]

That SMT diode features a stud mounted diode property in which it works at high temperatures and needs little derating.

Excuse me, but do you imply that diode does not need derating when case temperature goes above 100^oC, and can work at full current even at 150^oC?
How about this one? Is it not legitimate too? https://eu.mouser.com/datasheet/2/115/SBRT10U60D1-756895.pdf
EDIT: I guess I understood it otherwise.

Package is determinant of temperature also very disimilar properties in diode, the uncharacterized part isn't rated to same values as mentioned TO-252 diode.

[wraper]

Yeah, compared with this one https://eu.mouser.com/datasheet/2/395/S10GC%20SERIES_B1708-1224220.pdf it's too optimistic. Seems they screwed up with that chart.

[LaserTazerPhaser]

The proper object here for the uncharacterized part is fraudulent and very much hazardous to employ in any substantially important circuit node.