epoxy goop source in australia?

[ulysses]

hey guys

im looking to do a short run of custom circuits - looking to goop for copy protection - will scratch off cap values also - so if they degoop they will have to desolder and test all caps also

with over 50 components it should be hard to clone anyway

anyone got a good source of epoxy goop in australia - ive never done it before - is there a photo essay available?

cheers
ulysses

[John Lyons]

Anything that is opaque will be fine. Epoxy mixed with pigment... RTV silicon... bondo....

John

[SolderBoy]

I use Digger's casting resin (and catalyst of course) plus a little mars black artists pigment for potting boxes, and for just gooping straight on to PCB's you could try selley's 5 min epoxy (areldite) with the black powder.  Its quite runny at first and you'll probably have to hold the board and tilt it back and forth for a minute or so, but it gets viscous very quickly.  I guess you could also use masking tape as a little wall around the edge of the board and pour it on, but I think the boxes and casting resin do pretty neat job - Jaycar and RS have a good range.

I guess you could also use "bondo".  We have a similar prod called selley's "plast-bond".  It dries a sort of grey-green colour.  For the quickest and simplest goop, I recon Liquid nails (construction adhesive) would work well, too - and straight from the tube - although a thick application would probably need a while to get hard - maybe over night (?)

For areldite, casting resin, plasti-bond, liquid nails  - bunnings.  I doubt they'll have powdered pigments though - I got my little jar years ago from an artist's supply shop.

good luck!

[ulysses]

id like to see anyone get areldite off 

thanks for the help guys

cheers
ulysses

[Papa_lazerous]

Its a whole lot of work to stop someone copying your circuit 

I suppose it'll stop the un-educated from ripping you off but the more experienced will have a good idea what is going on under all the resin anyway, dont suppose there are too many truly original circuits now just new generations and mods on previous.

Just letting my thoughts leak onto the screen....

I'd be tempted to just spray paint over the whole circuit with a quick coat of black to obscure any lettering then apply a thin uniform layer of areldite then its resin coated and the quick flash over with the paint has hidden any identification 

God only knows how you will repair one of these hahaha

[ulysses]

i was really hoping for it to come out like the goop on the klon. looks like really neat - i imagine its a squeegie pot of black goop that you swueeze on and then it evens out.

surely there is a domestic product available - mixing up araldite and powder etc seems like an uncecessary process.

cheers
ulysses

[darron]

an epoxy or something solid sounds better to me, but pretty much anything can be dissolved. it would add a bit of mystery to your effects! i wouldn't expect that cloning would effect you much. maybe it's just around here and out of respect, but it's rare to hear about thinngs like the zvex pedals or the hotcake getting cloned. it's all one more process that ads length to your product's build time, but i'd probably do it too (:

[alextheian-alex]

80% silica filler, 19.95% epoxy+hardener, .05% black carbon should do the trick if you want to brew it at home, but many companies, like Loctite, make ready-to-mix electronics potting epoxy in either hard or soft variants.

[blanik]

- so if they degoop they will have to desolder and test all caps also

that would be.. us? 

[SolderBoy]

Actually...  another thing that you could try is "body deadener" from super cheap or repco or something.  Its sort of bitumen stuff in a can.  Might be just what you are chasing...

[ulysses]

that would be.. us? 

hehe.. hopefully not

cheers
ulysses

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

Catalysed epoxy is the way to go. That means two parts. I can't think of any single part substance that comes near it.

"Amateurs sand down the chip markings. Professionals print NEW markings."

[petemoore]

  Steel reinforced cement ?
  'short' strands of stainless steel wire, carefully threaded under resistors [and tacked in place] [maybe some 'rubber paint' insulation, then SSteel wires, then bondo?]...

[R.G.]

I have to say that I'm disappointed.

I guess it's to be expected that there is a group of participants here that would stoop to goop, but I don't like to think of it.

Let me just make the following points:
1. Gooping a circuit encourages people who would otherwise never reverse a circuit to do so. Worse yet, it encourages the lurkers here who have seen the explanations on how to de-goop. They will think that a hidden circuit must be magic somehow, so they REALLY want to find out what's in it.
2. It is not possible to goop a circuit to the point that no one can figure it out. How do you think I collected the material for Dirty Tricks 101 at GEO?

It's like locks - they keep honest people out.

I encourage you to put your efforts into outrunning the competition, not fencing them out.

[petemoore]

I encourage you to put your efforts into outrunning the competition, not fencing them out.
  Well Put, sage advice [gathered from 'aerial viewpoint'] makes my Stainless Steel fence idea look funny .. chuckles.

[alextheian-alex]

I have to say that I'm disappointed.

I guess it's to be expected that there is a group of participants here that would stoop to goop, but I don't like to think of it.

Let me just make the following points:
1. Gooping a circuit encourages people who would otherwise never reverse a circuit to do so. Worse yet, it encourages the lurkers here who have seen the explanations on how to de-goop. They will think that a hidden circuit must be magic somehow, so they REALLY want to find out what's in it.
2. It is not possible to goop a circuit to the point that no one can figure it out. How do you think I collected the material for Dirty Tricks 101 at GEO?

It's like locks - they keep honest people out.

I encourage you to put your efforts into outrunning the competition, not fencing them out.

This has always been, and will continue to be an issue in the electronics world... so how do you propose that circuit DESIGNERS protect themselves?  My rationale behind obscuring access to components is to at least make a potential thief work for his booty... and if someone degoops a circuit and finds something ultimately simple in there, and not worth stealing, then it is all the more delicious.

True, creating something unique and identifiable is a good way to outrun the competition and carve a market nitch  (which is why there are not really any comercial ZVex or DR.Z cloners out there) but the flipside of that is the Dumble/Fuchs situation.  Historically, how about something closer to home, as in IBM -- who I know you are familiar with ;-) -- vs Phoenix/Lloyd's of London/Compaq in the early PC cloning days.  IBM had something unique, copyrighted and secret, but it got cracked and launched the careers of companies that eventually outran them...dispite the efforts of lawyers, which are ultimately ineffective, and small designers can't afford them anyway... and then the whole SCO vs IBM turned things around 180 degrees.

i don't want to start an argument... just present another view to stimulate thought and hopefully reach the best conclusion, so please nobody see this as an affront:

I think that in this context, trade secret protection protection scheme is a sliding four tiered heirarchy, with each step hopefully preventing the need for the next: innovation, protection, public disclosure, litigation... ie, 1) build a better mousetrap 2) protect your methods,  and if that doesn't work, 3) make it known to the public that your work has been stolen,  and if the theif does not fess up and make good, then 4) take it into court.

Step 2 is the sticking point here.  Protection of methods can take several forms, intangible as in copyright/patent--invoking legal methods for protection against use of the methods... and tangable-- invoking physical methods it more difficult to ascertain the methods:

it is true that:
-Locks will keep honest people from stealing your property but not dishonest people (and it may make it more alluring for them to know what is so special as to be worth patenting)... but it will make it more difficult for them.
Likewise
-Copyright/patent will keep honest people from stealing your property but not dishonest people (and it may make it more alluring for them to know what is so special as to be worth patenting)... but it will make it more difficult for them.
Likewise
-Physical conceilment will keep honest people from stealing your property but not dishonest people (and it may make it more alluring for them to know what is so special as to be worth patenting)... but it will make it more difficult for them.

Just my $.02, I am not attacking anyone.

[The Tone God]

My rationale behind obscuring access to components is to at least make a potential thief work for his booty... and if someone degoops a circuit and finds something ultimately simple in there, and not worth stealing, then it is all the more delicious.

Not that I am disagreeing but I am going to play The Tone Devil's advocate. My main concern about this statement is the effectiveness of this ideology which is determined by the metric with which you are measuring "work". If operating at a company that measures work in terms of costs resulting from time/materials then this is effectively true but the hobbiest/DIYers throw a monkey wrench into that logic.

DIYers don't measure work by either time, materials, or almost any other cost. They don't charge themselves for time spent. They tend to use readily available materials and skills to reduce costs. If they want an to know something fast they will put in the effort. If they are not in a hurry they can go slow and reduce their effort needed. The only thing to means something to them is getting to the information often by any means. DIYers are a tricky bunch to protect against.

If you want to use computers as an analogy lets look at those faceless, tireless, and without corporate association class of people known as crackers. Often manufactures put copy protection schemes in their software. Eventually someone brakes the protection, publishes the information, and you are back to where you started. The cracker has no cost or work issues to consider so how do you protect yourself ? You really can't. Those who want to pay will and those who don't will not. You are better off using other protection methodologies at this point.

I think that in this context, trade secret protection protection scheme is a sliding four tiered heirarchy, with each step hopefully preventing the need for the next: innovation, protection, public disclosure, litigation... ie, 1) build a better mousetrap 2) protect your methods,  and if that doesn't work, 3) make it known to the public that your work has been stolen,  and if the theif does not fess up and make good, then 4) take it into court.

Step 3 has some major issues as well as I see it. It would be hard to prove theft after the fact without having published you work before hand. This is why disclosure is part of the patent procedure. If public disclosure were to occur, particularly in the effects field, not only are you helping those you are trying to protect against but you open yourself to ridicule particularly if your circuit is not that special. And if you were to publicly make a claim of theft you could be asking for litigation which most cannot handle.

My advice would be to not spend time and money on gooping or in other ways protecting the circuit and instead focus on making a better product as well as raising the awareness of the product.

Andrew

[alextheian-alex]

My advice would be to not spend time and money on gooping or in other ways protecting the circuit and instead focus on making a better product as well as raising the awareness of the product.

That is a good point, and it #1 and #2 into a neater bundle.  if everyone knows that it is your design, and it is innovative and popular (example ZVex) then the problem almost takes care of itself.  i guess you could add to that too.  if you make the widget accessable and affordable, then it makes cloning less desirable as well.  Still, as far as #3 goes... I have seen a few *well known* fellows around here taking pot shots on their websites at bootweakers who stole their designs... and it got results in a few cases, so in moderation, I think that strategy can work.  it keeps Behringer in line... sometimes.

A little off topic, you mentioned Krackers.  I really hate when hard working people in tough-to-make-it fields like music electronics get ripped off, so I had quite a little chuckle to myself at the outrage in the kracker community when a few companies took the Apple - Intel changeover as an opprotunity to upgrade their security to iLok dongle authorization... which has not been properly kracked yet.  BOY are they pissed!  And I had an even bigger chuckle at the hacker that wrote a boot sector virus disguised as an iLok crack...  i know, it is morbid, but karma and all that.

[alextheian-alex]

DIYers are a tricky bunch to protect against.
Andrew

Oh I forgot something.  if you poke around other boards that have less scrupulous members, you can see how frustrating it is to them when a builder does something as simple as sanding the numbers off an opamp or discreet.  I mean, I would be hard pressed to tell if a sanded-off to-92 component was a BJT, mosfet (depl or enh), current source, voltage source or regulator.  The simple frustration of "what is THAT thing" has protected a few builders over the years.

[John Lyons]

Maybe just put in one of those exploding dye packets like in bank money bags.
Gee, joe...what happended, your face is all red...