TO220--thin leads--high current--How?
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 6 May 2010 02:08 On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:31:22 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Wed, 05 May 2010 18:01:08 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:12:17 +1000, Grant <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 05 May 2010 07:09:09 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 04 May 2010 21:48:43 -0700, >>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:05:08 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Mon, 03 May 2010 23:06:40 -0700, >>>>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sun, 2 May 2010 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), "oparr(a)hotmail.com" >>>>>>><oparr(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 429?!!! The most ludicrous IR claim I've seen for a D2PAK was 340. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The spec states that 429A is; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Calculated continuous current based on maximum allowable junction >>>>>>>>temperature. Package limitation current is 160A." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The only thing that makes sense is the packaged limited current IMO. >>>>>>>>This D2PAK has 6 source leads and the entire tab is the drain lead. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 2, 3:46 pm, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Again an infinite heatsink driven by copious amounts of LN2. >>>>>> >>>>>>Gp they use LN2? The appnote cited here said "nucleated boiling >>>>>>liquid." >>>>>> >>>>>>John >>>>> >>>>>Are you proposing that LN2 cannot boil in the normal (nucleate) way? >>>> >>>>No. I was just wondering which liquid IR uses to generate their absurd >>>>dishonest ratings. >>> >>>Simulated liquid? :) >>> >>>I worked for a company over 30 years ago, that took IR to court >>>regarding over-rated SCRs that failed too often in the field. >>> >>>This IR attitude seems well established. >>> >>>Grant. >> >> >>www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/an-1140.pdf >> >>Their "ultimate current" ratings are apparently done in an "inert >>nucleated boiling liquid" at 23C, which doesn't sound much like LN2 to >>me. > >It could be, with the appropriate resistor inbetween. Kinda tough to >stabilize the mess, but it only has to work long enough to make the >measurement. > >>And they seem to be testing DPAKs on a solid aluminum "pc board." > >Speaking of which, does anyone have information on the JEDEC JEXD51-7 >standards for high and low "effective thermal conductivity test boards"? >Unfortunately we're not members and aren't likely to be. JEDEC JESD51-3 and JESD51-7 look inexpensive enough, just register. http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/results/taxonomy%3A2480?order=field_doc_full_number_value&sort=asc -- Transmitted with recycled bits. Damnly my frank, I don't give a dear ----------
From: krw on 6 May 2010 19:11 On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:08:15 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:31:22 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Wed, 05 May 2010 18:01:08 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:12:17 +1000, Grant <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 05 May 2010 07:09:09 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 04 May 2010 21:48:43 -0700, >>>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:05:08 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Mon, 03 May 2010 23:06:40 -0700, >>>>>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Sun, 2 May 2010 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), "oparr(a)hotmail.com" >>>>>>>><oparr(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 429?!!! The most ludicrous IR claim I've seen for a D2PAK was 340. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The spec states that 429A is; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Calculated continuous current based on maximum allowable junction >>>>>>>>>temperature. Package limitation current is 160A." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The only thing that makes sense is the packaged limited current IMO. >>>>>>>>>This D2PAK has 6 source leads and the entire tab is the drain lead. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 2, 3:46�pm, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Again an infinite heatsink driven by copious amounts of LN2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Gp they use LN2? The appnote cited here said "nucleated boiling >>>>>>>liquid." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>John >>>>>> >>>>>>Are you proposing that LN2 cannot boil in the normal (nucleate) way? >>>>> >>>>>No. I was just wondering which liquid IR uses to generate their absurd >>>>>dishonest ratings. >>>> >>>>Simulated liquid? :) >>>> >>>>I worked for a company over 30 years ago, that took IR to court >>>>regarding over-rated SCRs that failed too often in the field. >>>> >>>>This IR attitude seems well established. >>>> >>>>Grant. >>> >>> >>>www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/an-1140.pdf >>> >>>Their "ultimate current" ratings are apparently done in an "inert >>>nucleated boiling liquid" at 23C, which doesn't sound much like LN2 to >>>me. >> >>It could be, with the appropriate resistor inbetween. Kinda tough to >>stabilize the mess, but it only has to work long enough to make the >>measurement. >> >>>And they seem to be testing DPAKs on a solid aluminum "pc board." >> >>Speaking of which, does anyone have information on the JEDEC JEXD51-7 >>standards for high and low "effective thermal conductivity test boards"? >>Unfortunately we're not members and aren't likely to be. > > >JEDEC JESD51-3 and JESD51-7 look inexpensive enough, just register. > >http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/results/taxonomy%3A2480?order=field_doc_full_number_value&sort=asc If I read it right, membership is $2200 for the first year (and up from there). I just want some idea what constitutes "high" and "low" thermal conductivity. Intersil does a good job with their datasheets, here, but leaves out this rather important piece of information.
From: langwadt on 6 May 2010 19:37 On 6 Maj, 05:10, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:31:22 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > > > > <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >On Wed, 05 May 2010 18:01:08 -0700, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:12:17 +1000, Grant <o...(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: > > >>>On Wed, 05 May 2010 07:09:09 -0700, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>>>On Tue, 04 May 2010 21:48:43 -0700, > >>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>>>On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:05:08 -0700, John Larkin > >>>>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>On Mon, 03 May 2010 23:06:40 -0700, > >>>>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>On Sun, 2 May 2010 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), "op...(a)hotmail.com" > >>>>>>><op...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> 429?!!! The most ludicrous IR claim I've seen for a D2PAK was 340. > > >>>>>>>>The spec states that 429A is; > > >>>>>>>>"Calculated continuous current based on maximum allowable junction > >>>>>>>>temperature. Package limitation current is 160A." > > >>>>>>>>The only thing that makes sense is the packaged limited current IMO. > >>>>>>>>This D2PAK has 6 source leads and the entire tab is the drain lead. > > >>>>>>>>On May 2, 3:46 pm, John Larkin wrote: > > >>>>>>>Again an infinite heatsink driven by copious amounts of LN2. > > >>>>>>Gp they use LN2? The appnote cited here said "nucleated boiling > >>>>>>liquid." > > >>>>>>John > > >>>>>Are you proposing that LN2 cannot boil in the normal (nucleate) way? > > >>>>No. I was just wondering which liquid IR uses to generate their absurd > >>>>dishonest ratings. > > >>>Simulated liquid? :) > > >>>I worked for a company over 30 years ago, that took IR to court > >>>regarding over-rated SCRs that failed too often in the field. > > >>>This IR attitude seems well established. > > >>>Grant. > > >>www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/an-1140.pdf > > >>Their "ultimate current" ratings are apparently done in an "inert > >>nucleated boiling liquid" at 23C, which doesn't sound much like LN2 to > >>me. > > >It could be, with the appropriate resistor inbetween. Kinda tough to > >stabilize the mess, but it only has to work long enough to make the > >measurement. > > LN2 is pretty thin stuff, namely low specific heat. Water is fabulous. > > Maybe they used distilled water under enough vacuum to boil at 23C. > Wouldn't put it past them. > > John could be R11 it boils at 23.7C at 1bar, latent heat of evaporation(kJ/ Kg) about 1/10 of water. and ~50% heavier than water. but it is one of the "bad boys" -Lasse
From: Grant on 6 May 2010 21:48 On Thu, 06 May 2010 18:11:38 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:08:15 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:31:22 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 05 May 2010 18:01:08 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:12:17 +1000, Grant <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 05 May 2010 07:09:09 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 04 May 2010 21:48:43 -0700, >>>>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:05:08 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Mon, 03 May 2010 23:06:40 -0700, >>>>>>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Sun, 2 May 2010 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), "oparr(a)hotmail.com" >>>>>>>>><oparr(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 429?!!! The most ludicrous IR claim I've seen for a D2PAK was 340. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The spec states that 429A is; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>"Calculated continuous current based on maximum allowable junction >>>>>>>>>>temperature. Package limitation current is 160A." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The only thing that makes sense is the packaged limited current IMO. >>>>>>>>>>This D2PAK has 6 source leads and the entire tab is the drain lead. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On May 2, 3:46 pm, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Again an infinite heatsink driven by copious amounts of LN2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Gp they use LN2? The appnote cited here said "nucleated boiling >>>>>>>>liquid." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>John >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Are you proposing that LN2 cannot boil in the normal (nucleate) way? >>>>>> >>>>>>No. I was just wondering which liquid IR uses to generate their absurd >>>>>>dishonest ratings. >>>>> >>>>>Simulated liquid? :) >>>>> >>>>>I worked for a company over 30 years ago, that took IR to court >>>>>regarding over-rated SCRs that failed too often in the field. >>>>> >>>>>This IR attitude seems well established. >>>>> >>>>>Grant. >>>> >>>> >>>>www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/an-1140.pdf >>>> >>>>Their "ultimate current" ratings are apparently done in an "inert >>>>nucleated boiling liquid" at 23C, which doesn't sound much like LN2 to >>>>me. >>> >>>It could be, with the appropriate resistor inbetween. Kinda tough to >>>stabilize the mess, but it only has to work long enough to make the >>>measurement. >>> >>>>And they seem to be testing DPAKs on a solid aluminum "pc board." >>> >>>Speaking of which, does anyone have information on the JEDEC JEXD51-7 >>>standards for high and low "effective thermal conductivity test boards"? >>>Unfortunately we're not members and aren't likely to be. >> >> >>JEDEC JESD51-3 and JESD51-7 look inexpensive enough, just register. >> >>http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/results/taxonomy%3A2480?order=field_doc_full_number_value&sort=asc > >If I read it right, membership is $2200 for the first year (and up from >there). Registration for downloads is free, as are the downloads. > I just want some idea what constitutes "high" and "low" thermal >conductivity. Intersil does a good job with their datasheets, here, but >leaves out this rather important piece of information. Isn't that just watts by the thermal resistance for some temp rise? Grant. -- http://bugs.id.au/
From: krw on 6 May 2010 23:23
On Fri, 07 May 2010 11:48:51 +1000, Grant <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: >On Thu, 06 May 2010 18:11:38 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:08:15 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:31:22 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 05 May 2010 18:01:08 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:12:17 +1000, Grant <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Wed, 05 May 2010 07:09:09 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Tue, 04 May 2010 21:48:43 -0700, >>>>>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:05:08 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Mon, 03 May 2010 23:06:40 -0700, >>>>>>>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 2 May 2010 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), "oparr(a)hotmail.com" >>>>>>>>>><oparr(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 429?!!! The most ludicrous IR claim I've seen for a D2PAK was 340. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>The spec states that 429A is; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>"Calculated continuous current based on maximum allowable junction >>>>>>>>>>>temperature. Package limitation current is 160A." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>The only thing that makes sense is the packaged limited current IMO. >>>>>>>>>>>This D2PAK has 6 source leads and the entire tab is the drain lead. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On May 2, 3:46�pm, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Again an infinite heatsink driven by copious amounts of LN2. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Gp they use LN2? The appnote cited here said "nucleated boiling >>>>>>>>>liquid." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Are you proposing that LN2 cannot boil in the normal (nucleate) way? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No. I was just wondering which liquid IR uses to generate their absurd >>>>>>>dishonest ratings. >>>>>> >>>>>>Simulated liquid? :) >>>>>> >>>>>>I worked for a company over 30 years ago, that took IR to court >>>>>>regarding over-rated SCRs that failed too often in the field. >>>>>> >>>>>>This IR attitude seems well established. >>>>>> >>>>>>Grant. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/an-1140.pdf >>>>> >>>>>Their "ultimate current" ratings are apparently done in an "inert >>>>>nucleated boiling liquid" at 23C, which doesn't sound much like LN2 to >>>>>me. >>>> >>>>It could be, with the appropriate resistor inbetween. Kinda tough to >>>>stabilize the mess, but it only has to work long enough to make the >>>>measurement. >>>> >>>>>And they seem to be testing DPAKs on a solid aluminum "pc board." >>>> >>>>Speaking of which, does anyone have information on the JEDEC JEXD51-7 >>>>standards for high and low "effective thermal conductivity test boards"? >>>>Unfortunately we're not members and aren't likely to be. >>> >>> >>>JEDEC JESD51-3 and JESD51-7 look inexpensive enough, just register. >>> >>>http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/results/taxonomy%3A2480?order=field_doc_full_number_value&sort=asc >> >>If I read it right, membership is $2200 for the first year (and up from >>there). > >Registration for downloads is free, as are the downloads. I didn't see how. I'll try again in the morning. >> I just want some idea what constitutes "high" and "low" thermal >>conductivity. Intersil does a good job with their datasheets, here, but >>leaves out this rather important piece of information. > >Isn't that just watts by the thermal resistance for some temp rise? Plus ambient, sure. Now tell me what the thermal resistance of my board is. |