Detecting counterfeit 4110 mosfets

I was looking at the mosfets, before shipping them... And one had a different shade of grey on the back. I turn it over and.... it's an "IRF3205"!! I never had a closer look at theese parts before... Well, I guess you can test it too in the bunch, for the same principle as the ESD problem! :lol:
Too bad I waited too long and I can't leave a negative feedback anymore.

Btw, fets are on the way!
 
CamLight said:
Thanks methods!
Gip has contacted me and has my address. Looks like I can start some testing in a few days! :mrgreen:

You needed more from me right?
I think I only sent you 5 last time.

I get like 20 PM's a day and your address is buried.
If you would PM me again with your address I will send you some more fets.
What do you think you need? 10 more?

I will make sure Gip gets hooked up for helping with the cause.

-methods
 
I sent my mosfets yesterday! 7€ of shipping... :shock: These mosfets are costing me a lot!! :D
 
Doh!
Did not realize that you were out of the country.
What method did you use? That is actually fairly cheap.

$10 is a small amount to pay though to share this information with everyone on the board.

-methods
 
CamLight said:
Yea, it was 4 or 5, send more. :mrgreen:
Both Link and Gip have contacted me and they have my address. I'll send it to you too.

Ok, I sent you another 15 Genuine IRFB4110 fets.
Should be there in 3 days.

-methods
 
Browsed around and figured out how to ship stuff. The 20 of mine are in a small box on my lap, scavenged from the mica escapades. I'll drop these off tomorrow, since I think the post closed at six. :?
 
Right, well, my internet died (again) and this time it didn't come back within a few hours, so I called EarthLink Thursday morning and jumped through all the hoops I had to in order to get them to do a line test from their end (I was dead sure it wasn't a problem over here; DSL line and hardware were working fine).

Turns out they can't get any response from the line they're using to get to me (which I guess is operated by SBC), so they have to get them to fix it. God knows when I'm getting my internet back.

I hope it's soon. I'm having withdrawal symptoms. :(

Whoops, back to work. Be back at...uh...some point or other...
 
I received a bunch of MOSFETs from methods and Link. I started the testing and will update this post as new results are added. I'll add a post any time this happens.

Drain-to-Source Leakage Current
How much current passes through the MOSFET when it's turned off but a high voltage is applied across its drain and source terminals. It can help to indicate which MOSFETs might be more susceptible to failing at voltages above the rated maximum. But, it's certainly not a definite marker for that.

The genuine IRFB4110 is rated for 20uA leakage at a Vds = 100V, at room temperature, I tested at 98V to, hopefully, keep from damaging any of them and allow for further testing of each. None of the tested MOSFETs increased their leakage values during the 2 minutes I left each one at 98V. IMHO, this means no damage was caused by the test.

All test results are in microamps. All results that differ a lot from the average were retested twice and confirmed.

"Fake" FB4110 batch and date codes, packed loose in zip-lock bag
1F 7P
P645J

F1 = .051uA
F2 = .033uA
F3 = .024uA
F4 = .044uA
F5 = .051uA
F6 = .033uA
F7 = .050uA
F8 = .025uA
F9 = .044uA
F10 = .045uA

************************

"Fake" FB4110 batch and date codes, packed in TO-220 anti-static tube, different density printing than above
1F 7P
P645J

F11 = .103uA
F12 = .228uA
F13 = 4.468uA
F14 = .111uA
F15 = .001uA
F16 = .002uA
F17 = .181uA
F18 = .122uA
F19 = .195uA
F20 = .126uA

************************

Genuine IRFB4110 date and batch codes, packed in TO-220 anti-static tube
928P
5V KY

G1 = .019uA
G2 = .021uA
G3 = .019uA
G4 = .020uA
G5 = .023uA
G6 = .020uA
G7 = .019uA
G8 = .020uA
G9 = .019uA
G10 = .019uA
G11 = .019uA
G12 = .020uA
G13 = .019uA
G14 = .021uA

************************

Genuine IRFB4110 date and batch codes, packed in TO-220 anti-static tube
920P
S6 U2

G15 = .018uA
G16 = .018uA
G17 = .018uA
G18 = .018uA

************************

As you can see, the genuine IR MOSFETs have significantly more consistent leagage currents, indicating more consistent production. None of the fake MOSFETs were even close to exceeding the specs for the genuine MOSFETs though. :mrgreen:

The next tests will be at 110Vds. Each will be held at that value for 1 minute then I will do a shrapnel check on my body and measure the leakage current is the MOSFET is still there. But, I don't think this test will be any indication whatsoever of whether the MOSFET can be used at above its rated voltage level as it will be done at room temperature and only for a short period. Ideally, it should be done at at least a 100C junction temperature and for days, if not weeks. Maybe I can put a bunch in parallel with a heat gun on them and run the test for an hour....maybe. :D
 
Hi, glad that you received mosfets and started testing!
I know it's a bit too late to ask, but can you number the fets so we can follow them trough the tests? I'm curious to know how the .001uA one will behave versus a genuine one! And I suppose that the 4uA one is my IRF3205, right? To encourage you, I made this little spreadsheet:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApoWj3bOfRimdExJdEV4S1psd1VOYlBDRFZ0X1NfTnc&hl=en
Everyone can contribute, so if someone wants to make a graph or get the average of values, just do it! Only rule: the first sheet is only to collect data!! If you want to draw a graph or write something, create another sheet on the bottom. I hope no one will vandalize it, if so I will have to restrict write access to cam only.

Thank you! :D
 
Excellent test camlight! :wink:

that give us a great info on the constency between the FB and IRFB mosfet!

The test at 100 degree C would be interesting! but also the test at 110Vdc!

I've already drived my 12 fets analog controller with the IRFB at 109V accidently and it still work nice and seems to have no dammadge but the time will decide for that... :lol:

since we are many to use the controlelr with 24s of 4.2V lithium cells ( 100.8V) ... and some that want to do 30s with lifepo4 (111V).. I wonder how it can be risky when using these mosfets at so high voltage since they are 100V rated...

How their life can be affected if overvolted to 10%... Does using a 18 mosfet controller instead of 12 mosfet could be better if every mosfet would drive less current and btw be less stressed with current to compensdate the stress of HV ?.. in other words, does overvolting them and to compensate this stress by driving less current can decrease the risk of blowing?

Each time i power ON my controller with higher than 102V, I pray and hope it will not blow :lol:

Doc
 
I'm excited to see the Rds-On.

Thank you for doing such a great job and testing for us!

Speaking of testing...

DoctorBass- When are we going to see some cell testing?
 
gip_mad said:
Hi, glad that you received mosfets and started testing!
I know it's a bit too late to ask, but can you number the fets so we can follow them trough the tests? I'm curious to know how the .001uA one will behave versus a genuine one! And I suppose that the 4uA one is my IRF3205, right? To encourage you, I made this little spreadsheet:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApoWj3bOfRimdExJdEV4S1psd1VOYlBDRFZ0X1NfTnc&hl=en
Everyone can contribute, so if someone wants to make a graph or get the average of values, just do it! Only rule: the first sheet is only to collect data!! If you want to draw a graph or write something, create another sheet on the bottom. I hope no one will vandalize it, if so I will have to restrict write access to cam only.

Thank you! :D
Thanks for creating the spreadsheet! I'll check it out soon.

That 4uA FET is one of the fake FB4110's. I never received a package from you :( , just Link and methods. When did you send it?

I had been keeping track of the MOSFETs and forgot to number the results above. Thanks for mentioning it! I have edited the test results post with the fake MOSFETs having a prefix of "F" and the genuine ones having a prefix of "G".
 
Doctorbass said:
<snip>
since we are many to use the controlelr with 24s of 4.2V lithium cells ( 100.8V) ... and some that want to do 30s with lifepo4 (111V).. I wonder how it can be risky when using these mosfets at so high voltage since they are 100V rated...

How their life can be affected if overvolted to 10%... Does using a 18 mosfet controller instead of 12 mosfet could be better if every mosfet would drive less current and btw be less stressed with current to compensdate the stress of HV ?.. in other words, does overvolting them and to compensate this stress by driving less current can decrease the risk of blowing?
<snip>

Doc
Any time you operate a MOSFET at greater than about 80% of any of its ratings by, you start to significantly increase the chance that MOSFET will fail. It can be a gradual degradation of their specs or the FET can suddenly blow. Operating a 100V MOSFET at 100V (or even higher) places that MOSFET under severe stress.

Yes, they can operate for years that way. And it's also just as likely that they'll blow quickly too. Unfortunately, it's all about curves and average specs.

For example, the 100V max Vds rating of the IRFB4110 is just the voltage at which the vast majority of 4110's can operate at with a reasonable expectation of not failing (if kept cool, the gate voltage isn't too high, etc.). Because it would cost a lot of money to absolutely guarantee that every 4110 could operate at 100V, the manufacturer gambles a bit and manufactures the MOSFETs so that they "should" survive at that voltage. But they all recommend operating a voltage level way below the max. That rating really and truly is a maximum rating.

Because of these life expectancy curves, if the 100V rating was a "guarantee to fail" spec, then many MOSFETs would fail at way below that. If the 100V rating was a "guaranteed operate forever" rating then they would cost a fortune because the manufacturer would have to label 150V-200V MOSFETs as only 100V ones.

Back to the curves....
A couple of 4110's will fail at below 100V but most will survive. As the voltage increases, more and more of them will fail. There's no way to predict which ones will fail at which voltage though. Extensive testing of a single batch can tell you but that takes a lot of time and money. That's exactly why they have a max Vds rating. No one needs to do any testing. :mrgreen:

Overvolting a MOSFET by 10% beyond its max Vds rating is begging for trouble. At 80% of its rating, the reliability starts to drop significantly. Now, since it can operate (not must operate) at up to 100V, you can have MOSFETs survive for years at 110V since they would survive for decades at below the rated max. Yes, the life has been severely shortened but the life was so long before that the shortened life is still long enough for our uses. There's no way to predict how short the life is though. It could be hours, all depending on the tiny differences between each MOSFET and how hard you push them.

Operating at high temperatures reduces it life too and also increases the chance of hot-spotting and thermal runaway (destroying the MOSFET) during turn-on and turn-off times. The MOSFET operates in its linear region for a short period during this time and is very susceptible to these problems then. And this damage is cumulative. Everything can seem great for hours, days, months or even years and suddenly the unit fails at significantly below its rated max specs because of this damage building up. That's another reason to not operate anywhere near the MOSFET's rated maximums. It adds a buffer to "absorb" damage and extend the MOSFET's life.

Even worse, you can operate the MOSFETs within all their ratings but still blow them because of thermal fatigue. The different coefficients of thermal expansion for the materials in the MOSFET cause them to expand and contract differently as the MOSFET heats up and cools down. Each time this happens, a little more physical damage can occur. This can damage the bond wires inside, allow moisture in, etc. Eventually the MOSFET fails by overheating due to increased internal resistance or cracking of the die or bond wires. Each time the MOSFET heats up and cools down, its life is shortened. Reducing the temperature the MOSFET heats up to increased its life. Even if that temperature is below its rated maximum.

To answer your question...
Overvolting damages the MOSFET. Operating at high temperature damages them. Thermally cycling a MOSFET damages it. Reducing the current can reduce the temperature but the lower current level itself will not extend the life (unless you were exceeding one of the current-related specs) of the MOSFET. The farther you get above that 80%-of-spec level, the faster the MOSFET will fail. Not "may fail"..."will fail". But, since we can't predict the life of any particular MOSFET (just a statistical average for the life of the batch based on educated guesses after testing), you have to decide for yourself how much it wold affect you if the MOSFETs failed. Operating at below the spec (especially the 80% level) means that you have a good chance of it never failing. Operating above that level just means you're rolling the dice...no way to tell. :mrgreen:
 
Doctorbass said:
The test at 100 degree C would be interesting! but also the test at 110Vdc!

Doc

The test would have to be done at elevated temperatures as the stress on the MOSFET at high voltage levels increases significantly when it's hot and it better simulates what's happening inside a controller when the MOSFET is operating. I'll see what I might be able to rig up. Not sure if I can do this yet though.
 
Doctorbass said:
since we are many to use the controlelr with 24s of 4.2V lithium cells ( 100.8V) ... and some that want to do 30s with lifepo4 (111V).. I wonder how it can be risky when using these mosfets at so high voltage since they are 100V rated...

Doc
Remember also that there may be spikes that are causing cumulative damage to the MOSFETs every time they turn on/off. It all depends on how well the controller was designed and built. These spikes can be many volts above the running voltage and are a huge reason to never exceed 80% of the MOSFET's voltage rating. Even at 80%, the MOSFET might actually be running at close (or even over) its rated max voltage.
 
gip_mad said:
I hope no one will vandalize it, if so I will have to restrict write access to cam only.

Thank you! :D
Hi gip-mad,
I tried to update the spreadsheet with the MOSFET ID numbers I'm using but I don't have write access. How can we arrange that? Feel free to PM me. :)
 
Thanks Camlight for these detailed explanations! :wink: It seems thatr i touch wood with my overvolted/overcurrented crystalyte controller (original analog 72V 35A with 12x 4710).. and now with 4110 from 2 years.

Everytime i use it it'S between 88V and 101V at up to 100A.. So i conclude that I REALLY touch wood!

I repaired blown mosfet many times on controllers and most of the time it was because these reasons:

-Mosfet screw not tightened correctly or.. even worst.. untighten itself! = overheat

-hot mosfet pin that melted wire insulation close to them= short

-voltage spike due to my ?%$?$(*&%(? !! Power Ten power supply with the crow bar circuit malfunction... that overvolt at startup...

-blocking motor rotation with full throttle = one phase with 100% power = overheat mosfet phase instead of sharing heat thru the 3 phase..

Doc
 
Doctorbass said:
Everytime i use it it'S between 88V and 101V at up to 100A.. So i conclude that I REALLY touch wood!

<snip>

Doc
Who knows, it could last for years? :)
For one of my load designs I ran four MOSFETs for 1000 hours continuously at their rated max junction temperature, 175C, and rated Vds, 60V. I then cycled them over 5,000 times from room temp to 140C (held there for 2 minutes) and then back to room temperature to induce thermal fatigue. I thought for sure that at least one would blow. They all worked perfectly.

IMHO, there's a lot of room in the ratings to exceed them. But, doing that means the MOSFETs could fail at any time and, for me, that's just not acceptable. Doesn't cost much more to design a system that has a very, very small chance of ever failing. I could never sell something with my name on it otherwise. And, I really, really hate repairing things. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
 
RdsOn! :) I want to see the difference in heating between the real and fake 4110s :) :)
 
RdsOn ??? :)
 
Gosh, I wish somebody wanted other data, like Rds-on.
It's getting boring just testing leakage current. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

I didn't get the FETs until two other full-time projects had started. I don't have much time for testing now but will get to it. A third smaller project finishes this weekend and then I actually am only working 25-27 hours a day. Lots of time available to test then! :D
 
Perfect!

That leaves at least negative 10hrs of freetime for you to get the RdsOn tested :) But of course it may be that nobody is interested in knowing... :p ;) :mrgreen: :roll: :twisted: :evil: :x :oops: :shock:
 
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but maybe testing Rds would be a good idea? :roll:
:lol:
Seriously though, testing some of their Rth j-c might be interesting since it is an important FET parameter? There might not be enough difference to be measured, but I would be curious to know.
 
Back
Top