A source of information?

[Charles]

http://www.electronics-radio.com/articles/electronic_components/transistor/transistor_codes/transistor_numbering.php

Hard to decipher some semiconductor part numbers, these days.

1N, 2N, 3N devices are well defined but 4N and 5N and 6N parts were never?
defined. Does anybody out there actually know if the old JEDEC standard was
dropped, or usurped, or has it just faded into the past? I cannot find a
JEDEC reference to a 6Nxxx optocoupler.

 

[Charles]

"Charles" wrote in message news:ijn0dd$8dk$1@news.eternal-september.org...

http://www.electronics-radio.com/articles/electronic_components/transistor/transistor_codes/transistor_numbering.php

Hard to decipher some semiconductor part numbers, these days.

1N, 2N, 3N devices are well defined but 4N and 5N and 6N parts were never?
defined. Does anybody out there actually know if the old JEDEC standard was
dropped, or usurped, or has it just faded into the past? I cannot find a
JEDEC reference to a 6Nxxx optocoupler.

http://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/104059/HP/6N134.html

 

[Phil Allison]

"Charles the Fuckwit "

http://www.electronics-radio.com/articles/electronic_components/transistor/transistor_codes/transistor_numbering.php

** Some just as dopey as "Charles" must have written the above drivel.

Fraid it is just plain WRONG !!

2N5459 = j-fet.

2N4444 = SCR

2N5446 = triac

Hard to decipher some semiconductor part numbers, these days.

1N, 2N, 3N devices are well defined...

** Like hell they are.


..... Phil

 

[Charles]

Dear God of electronics; we kneel before you and pay homage and ... suck
your down draft and ....

The JEDEC standard worked to some extent. I think perhaps I need more than
you can provide, dear GOD

 

[Phil Allison]

"Charles the Loon"

Dear God of electronics; we kneel before you and pay homage and ... suck
your down draft and ....

** Fuck you - you vile, autistic little cunt.

The JEDEC standard worked to some extent.

** Shame you do not.

Go to hell - you horrible, smelly damn TROLL.


...... Phil

 

[David Nebenzahl]

On 2/18/2011 4:12 PM Charles spake thus:

Dear God of electronics; we kneel before you and pay homage and ... suck
your down draft and ....

The JEDEC standard worked to some extent. I think perhaps I need more than
you can provide, dear GOD

It appears from your numerous recent postings that you need to learn
something about how Usenet (that's where you've posted these messages)
works.

You've posted the same question now in at least three threads in this
newsgroup with no apparent luck so far, apart from drawing some abuse
from Phil Allison. (A word about Phil: while he can be an absolute ass,
especially when he is apparently off his meds, he is also quite
knowledgable about things electronic.)

You might want to think about rephrasing your question: what is it you
want to know, anyhow? I think Phil is right: the JEDEC standard, at
least the 2Nxxxx one, is demonstrably NOT uniform, orthogonal,
standardized, as he demonstrated. Now, if you just want to complain or
rant about this lack of usefulness in this "standard", you are of course
welcome to do so here; just realize that you probably won't get much in
the way of useful feedback if you do.

On the other hand, if you're trying to track down some specific part #s,
then why don't you just say so?


--
The phrase "jump the shark" itself jumped the shark about a decade ago.

- Usenet

 

[Phil Allison]

"David Nebenzahl"

"Charles the Loon"

You've posted the same question now in at least three threads in this
newsgroup with no apparent luck so far, apart from drawing some abuse from
Phil Allison. (A word about Phil: while he can be an absolute ass,
especially when he is apparently off his meds, he is also quite
knowledgable about things electronic.)

You might want to think about rephrasing your question: what is it you
want to know, anyhow? I think Phil is right: the JEDEC standard, at least
the 2Nxxxx one, is demonstrably NOT uniform, orthogonal, standardized, as
he demonstrated. Now, if you just want to complain or rant about this lack
of usefulness in this "standard", you are of course welcome to do so here;
just realize that you probably won't get much in the way of useful
feedback if you do.

On the other hand, if you're trying to track down some specific part #s,
then why don't you just say so?

** There is no percentage in giving singing lessons to pigs.



..... Phil

 

[William Sommerwerck]

1N, 2N, 3N devices are well defined
but 4N and 5N and 6N parts were never?

I believe the initial number is the number of PN junctions in the device --
at least as far as junction devices go.

 

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker"

1N, 2N, 3N devices are well defined
but 4N and 5N and 6N parts were never?

I believe the initial number is the number of PN junctions in the
device --
at least as far as junction devices go.

** How many junctions does a 2N5459 j-fet have ?



..... Phil

 

[William Sommerwerck]

1N, 2N, 3N devices are well defined
but 4N and 5N and 6N parts were never?

I believe the initial number is the number of PN junctions
in the device -- at least as far as junction devices go.

** How many junctions does a 2N5459 j-fet have?

Technically, one. JFETs are not generally considered "junction" transistors,
though they contain a junction. That's why I phrased my remark as I did.

 

[Phil Allison]

William Sommerwanker"

1N, 2N, 3N devices are well defined
but 4N and 5N and 6N parts were never?

I believe the initial number is the number of PN junctions
in the device -- at least as far as junction devices go.

** How many junctions does a 2N5459 j-fet have?

Technically, one.

** Then it breaks your hypothesis.

JFETs are not generally considered "junction" transistors,

** Irrelevant.

That's why I phrased my remark as I did.

** Which included j-fets - piss head.


..... Phil

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:46:53 -0500, "Charles"
<charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

http://www.electronics-radio.com/articles/electronic_components/transistor/transistor_codes/transistor_numbering.php

Hard to decipher some semiconductor part numbers, these days.

1N, 2N, 3N devices are well defined but 4N and 5N and 6N parts were never?
defined. Does anybody out there actually know if the old JEDEC standard was
dropped, or usurped, or has it just faded into the past? I cannot find a
JEDEC reference to a 6Nxxx optocoupler.

The type designations are controlled by the JEDEC under document
JESD270B which tracks ANSI/EIA-370-B-1992. You can get a copy at:
<http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/jesd-370b>
but you'll need to register and login.

Section 1a mumbles something about the first digit, minus 1, equals
the number of useful electrical connections (which do not include the
case shield connection). So, if your device has a half dozen
electrical connections, it would be a 5Nxxxx.

Good luck decoding the rest of the document. If there were some
slip-ups in device classification, my guess(tm) is that it was because
nobody could understand the document.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:01:38 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

"Charles the Fuckwit "

http://www.electronics-radio.com/articles/electronic_components/transistor/transistor_codes/transistor_numbering.php


** Some just as dopey as "Charles" must have written the above drivel.

Fraid it is just plain WRONG !!

2N5459 = j-fet.

2N4444 = SCR

2N5446 = triac


Hard to decipher some semiconductor part numbers, these days.

1N, 2N, 3N devices are well defined...

** Like hell they are.

Go easy on the white space consumption. At your present rate of
wasting white space, the world's supply will soon be depleted and
AllTheWordsWillRunTogether.

Go thee unto:
<http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/jesd-370b>
register, login, download, and read the document. In particular, see
section 1A, which says that the numeric prefix is by the number of
active connections, minus one. the JFET, SCR, Triac, and Transistor
all have 3 active leads. I don't have my calculator handy, but I
suspect if I subtract 1 from this, I get the 2N prefix. 4 and 5
leaded devices, such as optoisolators and dual gate MOSFET's, are also
consistent. Anyways, it's NOT by device type. It's by the number of
active connections.

Full moon tonite...

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeff Liebermann"

The type designations are controlled by the JEDEC under document
JESD270B which tracks ANSI/EIA-370-B-1992. You can get a copy at:
http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/jesd-370b
but you'll need to register and login.

Section 1a mumbles something about the first digit, minus 1, equals
the number of useful electrical connections (which do not include the
case shield connection).

** Fits nicely with 3Nxxx numbers being all dual gate mosfets.

So, if your device has a half dozen
electrical connections, it would be a 5Nxxxx.

** Dunno if JEDEC numbers really cover ICs at all.

Imagine an SMD uP being a " 99Nxxxxx "

Is the 4Nxx series of optos JEDEC registered ??


...... Phil

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:35:45 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann"

The type designations are controlled by the JEDEC under document
JESD270B which tracks ANSI/EIA-370-B-1992. You can get a copy at:
http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/jesd-370b
but you'll need to register and login.

Section 1a mumbles something about the first digit, minus 1, equals
the number of useful electrical connections (which do not include the
case shield connection).

** Fits nicely with 3Nxxx numbers being all dual gate mosfets.

Yep. That's consistent.

So, if your device has a half dozen
electrical connections, it would be a 5Nxxxx.

** Dunno if JEDEC numbers really cover ICs at all.

It doesn't. The system of counting leads would rapidly become
useless. I'm too lazy to check who controls the 74xx designations.

Imagine an SMD uP being a " 99Nxxxxx "

I have no imagination. In the 1970's I learned that all significant
numbering systems eventually break. I've seen little since then to
change that opinion.

Is the 4Nxx series of optos JEDEC registered ??

Yes.

It seems to go out of whack with the 6N139 optical device. I count 6
active leads, which should make it a 5Nxxx part number.
Hmmm... maybe you're right?
<http://i2c2p.twibright.com/datasheet/6n139.pdf>
The data sheet does NOT list JEDEC under "Agency Approvals" but Google
found some other data sheets that claim JEDEC approval. Some
questions are best not asked.

Gone howling...

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Charles]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
news:4d5f0eb1$0$12544$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...

On 2/18/2011 4:12 PM Charles spake thus:

It appears from your numerous recent postings that you need to learn
something about how Usenet (that's where you've posted these messages)
works.

You've posted the same question now in at least three threads in this
newsgroup with no apparent luck so far, apart from drawing some abuse
from Phil Allison.

You and Phil and Mike need to learn about basic civil behavior. The first
and second posts garnered rude and irrelevant replies. So, I re-posted ...
Shame On Me! I think questions are healthy and interesting things and help
us all advance. I think stupid and rude responses are beyond the pale.

 

[Wild_Bill]

You might find that using JAN numbers or FSNs are a lot of fun.

Most folks involved in the repair/service industries have used common part
numbers, generally marked directly on components (or parts
lists/schematics), for finding equivalent replacement parts.. for at least
the last several decades.

This method is efficient and reliable.. but of course, you're
welcome/entitled to use any other method you'd care to.

--
Cheers,
WB
..............


"Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ijpgkn$84v$1@news.eternal-september.org...

You and Phil and Mike need to learn about basic civil behavior. The first
and second posts garnered rude and irrelevant replies. So, I re-posted
... Shame On Me! I think questions are healthy and interesting things and
help us all advance. I think stupid and rude responses are beyond the
pale.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Charles wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
news:4d5f0eb1$0$12544$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...

On 2/18/2011 4:12 PM Charles spake thus:

It appears from your numerous recent postings that you need to learn
something about how Usenet (that's where you've posted these messages)
works.

You've posted the same question now in at least three threads in this
newsgroup with no apparent luck so far, apart from drawing some abuse
from Phil Allison.

You and Phil and Mike need to learn about basic civil behavior. The first
and second posts garnered rude and irrelevant replies. So, I re-posted ...
Shame On Me! I think questions are healthy and interesting things and help
us all advance. I think stupid and rude responses are beyond the pale.

Charles, follow your own advice.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Charles the TROLL "

You and Phil and Mike need to learn about basic civil behavior.

** Why be civil to a demented, bullshitting TROLL like you ??

You have NO point, No clue and NO case whatsoever.

Plus you REFUSE to take any notice when you are corrected.

QED you are a TROLL.


..... Phil