It's bewildering. Was looking for diodes in SC-75, barely anything. Then by chance I found the beloved old BAS, BAV and BAT diodes again. Slightly different numbers but they were listed under SOT-523 which looks the same to me as SC-75, or SOT-416 for that matter.
Is there a somewhat official site that has a compatibility table like the ones for watch batteries?
I don't know if there's anything "official", but just for S&G I did:
and got "about 98,300" hits.
Some of them look promising, especially if you know what you're looking for. I didn't see a(an?) "SC-75", but we don't do other people's homework here anyway. ;-)
Cheers! Rich
You know, if any student loves electronics so much that they refer to "the beloved old" *anything*, maybe we should encourage them? :-)
Not quite sure what you are babbling about, but if your question is about size of package only try this company that sells dummy components for assemblers to practise on. they have just about every package available in the industry in their catalog with drawing specs.
Joerg, I came to tag new cases used in a layout with the manufacturer and its internal reference number. I doubt there is an official compatibility table. While some cases may look identical, their recommended footprint, if there is any, may not be identical.
Rene
DJ Delorie a écrit :
Hey, don't give them bad trick ideas!
At one time military standards made devices compatible. But since they were dropped in favor of OTS, chaos.
Al
That's always been different even for the very same sizes, I got used to that. But it used to be that SOT23 was SOT23 was SOT23. Now they have three or more designators for the same package. Makes no sense.
Looks like they don't have the really small sizes such as SC-75 yet.
There's a business opportunity here for the enterprising component engineer or layout guy:
Make the web site, slather the borders* with click-through ads for semiconductor companies, PCB houses, layout software, etc. Then keep it up to date so that everyone goes there.
It could, if it were good enough, pay for itself.
Particularly if it had a nice table of equivalents, plus some recommended pad patterns for various different PCB layout software versions.
Yes, the military has always been an order of magnitude better in standardization than any civilian group. The worst ought to be EDA. Lip service, EDIF meetings, press releases, lots of blah-blah and the result is total chaos. No idea why because in medical we managed to agree on one standard (DICOM) and it works. Despite the fact that the number of competitors was a whole lot larger.
I got plenty of hits as well but also some contradictory pages. I was looking for a listing that is somewhat official. When I find one I'll post it.
It most certainly would.
Mozilla doesn't show any pop-ups. I wouldn't mind border ads either as long as they are professionally done without the stupid flashing colors.
You can come up with a table but wouldn't neccesarily be good for all, it's not simply yes or no. Best to use the recommended pad patterns first which are already available in the component specs and manufacturers have already experimented on them. PCB and component footprint of each design company might be different unless they follow the same component specs from the supplier. But in special cases when a special pad is required, Manufacturing can do some adjustments on machine and processes inorder to address the design requirement. But of course the price to pay for added cost in manufacturing. In my experience a simple 0603 had 5 different PCB footprints (on different models of course) but no significant impact on reliability.
really small sizes such as SC-75 yet.
Yeah it's there...look at page 14... sc-75a is same as sot416
Advise from a wise older EE lab rat," Things that are diffeent...are not the same."
sounds silly ion the surface. Ususlllay this tools can explain why it used to work and now does not.
Have fun
Marc
really small sizes such as SC-75 yet.
Yes, thanks, didn't see that. Doesn't list SOT-523 along with it though which is the size designator Diodes Inc. seems to prefer. From the datasheet of their MMBT3904T it looks the same as SOT-416 and SC-75:
Anyway, thanks for that link. I've printed out page 14 for guidance and will add some other size designators to it.
really small sizes such as SC-75 yet.
didn't see that. Doesn't list SOT-523 along with it though
I only provided you with their small 6mb catalog. It's probably in their 15MB catalog...
really small sizes such as SC-75 yet.
didn't see that. Doesn't list SOT-523 along with it though
Well, I just created a separate SOT523 model in my CAD. Don't make no sense but at least then it can't be wrong :-)
Try: JEDEC.ORG As far as I know they are the standards organization for all packaging.
Go to the "Free Standards" area. You'll have to register but it's free. (You don't need to be a paying member of the org to look at the standards.)
HTH Tom P.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required