Ok then, go with the Reverse Lead DPAK. The point is there is no real need to deal with the issues of getting a PCB to conduct a lot of heat. Just mount parts intended to be heat sinked with something other than
1 oz copper.
Ok then, go with the Reverse Lead DPAK. The point is there is no real need to deal with the issues of getting a PCB to conduct a lot of heat. Just mount parts intended to be heat sinked with something other than
1 oz copper.-- Rick
I am engineer. Hear me roar.
Of course, I want to manufacture stuff, namely pick-and-place a lot of mosfets on a PC board. No manufacturing weirdness.
That's a sweet part. Too bad there isn't a wider selection.
(Note: I assumed John wanted a FET, just as a for-instance. He never said it.)
Cheers, James Arthur
m?
ide
-fill, and
go for
eured about
arse.)
has
ND
CB
vias,
e-down.
He'd need a better part than that.
20x.025", solder-filled, 1.6mm board = 2K/W. 20x.025" copper-filled, .8mm board yields .25 K/W.About .9 K/W for a PowerSOT-8 I recently used. Total Rj to pad ~=1.2K/W.
Through-hole is so "last century." Why not just use 4cx350s?
High-power thermal stuff with SMD can be very demanding. No disrespect, but if you've done it, it's not showing here.
Cheers, James Arthur
like
measured about
was a
e worse.)
ay has
AND
TSuggests a Highland Tech. Halloween theme, eh?
Cheers, James Arthur
I'm not the one who picked DPAKs requiring the hassles of specifying special board designs. I prefer to use more conventional technology when it serves the purpose very well. As it turns out the Reverse Lead DPAK would work perfectly according to the OP. So why bother with the copper filled vias when they are an unneeded resistor to heat flow?
The idea that a technology that has been in use for decades is naturally inferior is a bit pretentious. 99% of the technology you use is "last century".
-- Rick
hem?
d side
ld
wer-fill, and
d go for
.ike
asured about
as a
worse.)
ay has
AND
PCB
d vias,
ide-down.
K/W.
h
The concept is excellent. We don't know if there are suitable parts.
No, it was funny. Like using fire-bottles. We are allowed to have fun, ar en't we?
If you want to hand-assemble boards, that's certainly your privilege.
Cheers, James Arthur
Like a DPAK that's 0.43 K/W maybe?
..and that has the distinctive advantage that a solder "pool" like i mentioned cannot happen.
A thinner PCB helps a lot; half thickness means double thermal conductivity; 14 mil is super.
them?
d side
uld
ew
der-fill, and
ld go for
d.
like
easured about
was a
worse.)
hay has
p AND
s PCB
ed vias,
side-down.
0.45 K/W was as good as I could do offhand (D2PAK)...Cheers, James Arthur
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11:21:19 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: [about cooling surface mount packages through the board]
Or, go low-tech, and instead of printed wiring on plastic, use printed wiring on porcelainized steel. It's a mature technology, and tolerates a bigger temperature range, if your other components can handle it.
The thing that determines theta is mostly the size of the silicon. A DPAK is about as good as a TO220, although the TO220 might achieve a little more lateral spreading, and the mounting hole limits that.
A lot of DPAKS are rated Tjc mounted on some PCB copper patch, which isn't Tjc at all. Some data sheets say SEE NOTE without providing such note.
Ricky is wrong as usual.
Do people make PCBs on porcelainized steel? That would be cute. These resistors are great:
We used them in a pulsed-load situation that was destroying wirewounds.
Thought about this last night. If you use Lasse's slick upside down DPAK idea, the DPAK's contact patch is only 4.1x4.3mm. So, if 0.2K/W is correct for one square inch, the pad would add 7 K/W for a DPAK-sized contact area, yes?
Handy list of thermal resistances for MOSFET packages:
Cheers, James Arthur
Yup, about 7 is right. Kinda high for my application, which might run
20 watts per device maybe.The mechanics don't look very appealing to use the upside-down DPAKs.
Neat. They show generic D2PAKs as having less theta than TO220s.
Their SOT223 number looks pessimistic.
Interesting that John is so obsessed by me. I wonder why. Maybe it's just another one of his uncontrollable urges.
-- Rick
I have an example board or two. They look like any other PCB, but the edges are radiused, and magnets stick to 'em. They're two-sided, holding a bunch of heavy-ish relays, and don't have any fine-line features. I never did figure out how the plated-through-hole problem was handled.
Lots of 'porcelain steel printed circuit' hits on Google.
...
Without reading all the replies to see if anyone else suggests such sacrilege, I'd consider reasonable-sized to moderately big ones with chunks of copper soldered into them - i.e. good old fashioned through hole-type jumper wires. They don't need to jump anywhere (one jumper could fill two holes on the same trace.) I suppose the idea will upset surface-mount centric modernists and the related production-lines.
A more artisanal approach might involve tiny sections of copper wire just the thickness of the board, precisely deformed so they would stick in the hole with a bit of space for solder to wick. But that seems like a real PITA...
-- Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by Please don't feed the trolls. Killfile and ignore them so they will go away.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.