TO220--thin leads--high current--How?
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 7 May 2010 01:04 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). 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. It sure looks like a free download to me without having tried to get it. I have no current need and have enough standards that i will pay for to buy. e.g. IEEE 1584.
From: krw on 7 May 2010 18:49
On Thu, 06 May 2010 22:04:02 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> 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). 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. > >It sure looks like a free download to me without having tried to get it. >I have no current need and have enough standards that i will pay for to >buy. e.g. IEEE 1584. I found it. I was trying to go in the back door by registering as a company first. I got what I needed. Thanks. |