An improved 2n7002

Guest
2n7002k.

http://www.vishay.com/docs/71333/2n7002k.pdf
Crss and Coss are about halved compared to the old-guard part,
the rest of the specs eyeball out about the same. Rdson may be
a tad lower, depending on Vgs & such. YMMV.

I may have to drive some switches at 15MHz, so low Crss is appealing.

Several mfrs make 'em. Gate's protected, too.

You guys would like the very nice OnSemi datasheet I have for
the OnSemi version. Online I only the see the Fairchild version
though -- not as detailed & helpful.


Cheers,
James Arthur
 
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:27:14 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

2n7002k.

http://www.vishay.com/docs/71333/2n7002k.pdf
Crss and Coss are about halved compared to the old-guard part,
the rest of the specs eyeball out about the same. Rdson may be
a tad lower, depending on Vgs & such. YMMV.

I may have to drive some switches at 15MHz, so low Crss is appealing.

Several mfrs make 'em. Gate's protected, too.

You guys would like the very nice OnSemi datasheet I have for
the OnSemi version. Online I only the see the Fairchild version
though -- not as detailed & helpful.


Cheers,
James Arthur
Click to expand...

I've got some products where the classic 2N7002 is better than any
more modern stuff we've tried. In particular, the Fairchild part will
switch 50 volts in under 1 ns, wildly different from what the data
sheet suggests.

The K version would be interesting to try for fast switching. I wonder
how gate protection might affect switching speed.

In the Vishay data sheet above, the Output and Transfer curves on
sheet 3 seem to disagree. The transfer curve also cruises well above
the abs max current.

(The Fairchild 2N7002 transfer curve is going great guns at 2 amps!)

Data sheets these days!



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics
 
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...
On 9 Oct 2019, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

2n7002k.
You guys would like the very nice OnSemi datasheet I have
for the OnSemi version. Online I only the see the
Fairchild version though -- not as detailed & helpful.
Click to expand...

Octopart has ON Semi version if you go down to 2N7002KT1G.

I've got some products where the classic 2N7002 is better
than any more modern stuff we've tried. In particular,
the Fairchild part will switch 50 volts in under 1 ns,
wildly different from what the data sheet suggests.
Click to expand...

What we need is a fast p-channel equivalent.


--
Thanks,
- Win
 
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 8:05:35 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

On 9 Oct 2019, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

2n7002k.
You guys would like the very nice OnSemi datasheet I have
for the OnSemi version. Online I only the see the
Fairchild version though -- not as detailed & helpful.

Octopart has ON Semi version if you go down to 2N7002KT1G.
Click to expand...

Yes, that shows the typical capacitance numbers of interest.
Thanks Win.

The OnSemi datasheet I prefer is OnSemi publication
2N7002K/D, rev. 16, October 2016 '2N7002K-D.pdf'. That
version has typical and worst-case numbers I don't see
elsewhere, not even on OnSemi's website, downloaded
three years ago. But I don't remember where I got it.

Ciss = 24.5pF typ, 45pF max.
Crss = 2.2pF typ, 5.0pF max.
Coss = 4.2pF typ, 8.0pF max.

These capacitances are already close to their minimums around
~2V.

For example, the classic Fairchild 2n7002 datasheet I've got
on my screen shows Crss = 20pF at 1V, and still 10pF at 10V.
OnSemi's 2n7002k: Crss = 8pF/0V, 4pF/1V, and 2.5pF/10V.

I've got some products where the classic 2N7002 is better
than any more modern stuff we've tried. In particular,
the Fairchild part will switch 50 volts in under 1 ns,
wildly different from what the data sheet suggests.

What we need is a fast p-channel equivalent.


--
Thanks,
- Win
Click to expand...

Also interesting is this Nexperia version, for its 40K/W thermal
resistance...
https://assets.nexperia.com/documents/data-sheet/2N7002BKM.pdf

As part of a much more complicated design with many moving parts
I've inherited a less-than-optimal class-C r.f. amplifier, which
prompted this bit of browsing...

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:27:14 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

2n7002k.

http://www.vishay.com/docs/71333/2n7002k.pdf
Crss and Coss are about halved compared to the old-guard part,
the rest of the specs eyeball out about the same. Rdson may be
a tad lower, depending on Vgs & such. YMMV.

I may have to drive some switches at 15MHz, so low Crss is appealing.

Several mfrs make 'em. Gate's protected, too.

You guys would like the very nice OnSemi datasheet I have for
the OnSemi version. Online I only the see the Fairchild version
though -- not as detailed & helpful.


Cheers,
James Arthur
Click to expand...

You shouldn't expect an 'improved' jedec registered part.

Variations between mfrs fabs of the same part number are a
nuisance, if not an actual hazard - not an advantage.

You CAN find 'better' parts with different part numbers and
that is what you should be doing, if you need parameters
that the registered part cannot guarantee.

RL
 
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 8:47:56 AM UTC-4, legg wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:27:14 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

2n7002k.

http://www.vishay.com/docs/71333/2n7002k.pdf
Crss and Coss are about halved compared to the old-guard part,
the rest of the specs eyeball out about the same. Rdson may be
a tad lower, depending on Vgs & such. YMMV.

I may have to drive some switches at 15MHz, so low Crss is appealing.

Several mfrs make 'em. Gate's protected, too.

You guys would like the very nice OnSemi datasheet I have for
the OnSemi version. Online I only the see the Fairchild version
though -- not as detailed & helpful.


Cheers,
James Arthur

You shouldn't expect an 'improved' jedec registered part.

Variations between mfrs fabs of the same part number are a
nuisance, if not an actual hazard - not an advantage.

You CAN find 'better' parts with different part numbers and
that is what you should be doing, if you need parameters
that the registered part cannot guarantee.

RL
Click to expand...

I wasn't expecting an improved part, I was reporting the existence of
them. :)

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
On 10 Oct 2019 05:05:17 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

On 9 Oct 2019, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

2n7002k.
You guys would like the very nice OnSemi datasheet I have
for the OnSemi version. Online I only the see the
Fairchild version though -- not as detailed & helpful.

Octopart has ON Semi version if you go down to 2N7002KT1G.

I've got some products where the classic 2N7002 is better
than any more modern stuff we've tried. In particular,
the Fairchild part will switch 50 volts in under 1 ns,
wildly different from what the data sheet suggests.

What we need is a fast p-channel equivalent.
Click to expand...

And some fast p-GaN fets. I'm using them in totem poles, but the upper
gate driver gets really messy.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/izvf0thpe5ddty9/T577B_Vp50.JPG?raw=1





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics
 
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 08:51:45 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:27:14 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

2n7002k.

http://www.vishay.com/docs/71333/2n7002k.pdf
Crss and Coss are about halved compared to the old-guard part,
the rest of the specs eyeball out about the same. Rdson may be
a tad lower, depending on Vgs & such. YMMV.

I may have to drive some switches at 15MHz, so low Crss is appealing.

Several mfrs make 'em. Gate's protected, too.

You guys would like the very nice OnSemi datasheet I have for
the OnSemi version. Online I only the see the Fairchild version
though -- not as detailed & helpful.


Cheers,
James Arthur

You shouldn't expect an 'improved' jedec registered part.

Variations between mfrs fabs of the same part number are a
nuisance, if not an actual hazard - not an advantage.

You CAN find 'better' parts with different part numbers and
that is what you should be doing, if you need parameters
that the registered part cannot guarantee.

RL
Click to expand...

I think some legal genius decided that one can't trademark a part
number. So LM1117 or MAX809 or whatever can be fabbed and sold by all
sorts of unsavory characters. We often specify ONSEMI ONLY or some
such for some of our stocked parts, and hope that they don't change
the recipe.

We have made deals with distributors to set aside a reel of mosfets,
send us 5 to evaluate, and sell us the same reel if we like them.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics
 
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:48:44 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 08:51:45 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:27:14 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

2n7002k.

http://www.vishay.com/docs/71333/2n7002k.pdf
Crss and Coss are about halved compared to the old-guard part,
the rest of the specs eyeball out about the same. Rdson may be
a tad lower, depending on Vgs & such. YMMV.

I may have to drive some switches at 15MHz, so low Crss is appealing.

Several mfrs make 'em. Gate's protected, too.

You guys would like the very nice OnSemi datasheet I have for
the OnSemi version. Online I only the see the Fairchild version
though -- not as detailed & helpful.


Cheers,
James Arthur

You shouldn't expect an 'improved' jedec registered part.

Variations between mfrs fabs of the same part number are a
nuisance, if not an actual hazard - not an advantage.

You CAN find 'better' parts with different part numbers and
that is what you should be doing, if you need parameters
that the registered part cannot guarantee.

RL

I think some legal genius decided that one can't trademark a part
number. So LM1117 or MAX809 or whatever can be fabbed and sold by all
sorts of unsavory characters. We often specify ONSEMI ONLY or some
such for some of our stocked parts, and hope that they don't change
the recipe.

We have made deals with distributors to set aside a reel of mosfets,
send us 5 to evaluate, and sell us the same reel if we like them.
Click to expand...

For a 2 or 3 terminal device you should probably stick to the worst
case guaranteed performance, in multisourcing.

If you're pushing the spec beyond that, you have to generate your own
internal part number, and qualify/restrict vendors.

With more pins and internal complexity, ALL part numbers are basically
an internal qual excercise. I have to qualify at least three sources
for something as basic as a UC3842, in a new product build. I'll often
rely on past known-good triples as a starting point, but they all get
fitted extensively enough to know if they're suited to the new app.

If purchasing wants to add a vendor after the papers are finalized,
it's their tough luck - they've already got the three and there has to
be SIGNIFIGANT cost savings to justify even thinking about it, never
mind running the 'new' part through it's paces, after-the-fact. The
best you can offer is a new internal number, including the new part,
to be adopted in the 'next' product, where used. It can be vetted
then, for that new use, then possibly be worked into the older builds,
based on proven performance.

If whoever's money we're (I'm) spending says 'go do it', well, nuff
said. If it's my own nickel, I'll usually find the time to beat up a
new candidate to my own satisfaction.

The worst position you can be in, is to find out that a single-sourced
part isn't doing what it claims as a basic minimum function - you need
a completely different approach, that avoids the part entirely, in
your back pocket, as an escape route. - and about two bushels of
unscheduled man-hours in which to make the escape.

RL
 
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:05:06 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:48:44 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 08:51:45 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:27:14 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

2n7002k.

http://www.vishay.com/docs/71333/2n7002k.pdf
Crss and Coss are about halved compared to the old-guard part,
the rest of the specs eyeball out about the same. Rdson may be
a tad lower, depending on Vgs & such. YMMV.

I may have to drive some switches at 15MHz, so low Crss is appealing.

Several mfrs make 'em. Gate's protected, too.

You guys would like the very nice OnSemi datasheet I have for
the OnSemi version. Online I only the see the Fairchild version
though -- not as detailed & helpful.


Cheers,
James Arthur

You shouldn't expect an 'improved' jedec registered part.

Variations between mfrs fabs of the same part number are a
nuisance, if not an actual hazard - not an advantage.

You CAN find 'better' parts with different part numbers and
that is what you should be doing, if you need parameters
that the registered part cannot guarantee.

RL

I think some legal genius decided that one can't trademark a part
number. So LM1117 or MAX809 or whatever can be fabbed and sold by all
sorts of unsavory characters. We often specify ONSEMI ONLY or some
such for some of our stocked parts, and hope that they don't change
the recipe.

We have made deals with distributors to set aside a reel of mosfets,
send us 5 to evaluate, and sell us the same reel if we like them.

For a 2 or 3 terminal device you should probably stick to the worst
case guaranteed performance, in multisourcing.

If you're pushing the spec beyond that, you have to generate your own
internal part number, and qualify/restrict vendors.
Click to expand...

All our BOMs use internal 7-digit part numbers. And every internal
part has a list of qualified vendors and their part numbers. We have a
stock bin for 2N7002 Fairchild Only. Another stock number is 2N7002
Fairchild or ON or Vishay.

We do often push specs. Like getting 1 ns out of a part whose data
sheet says it switches in 25. Sometimes we exceed abs max if the
payoff is big and we think we have margin. We can have a stock bin for
a part, and another bin for the tested part, and a test procedure.

With more pins and internal complexity, ALL part numbers are basically
an internal qual excercise. I have to qualify at least three sources
for something as basic as a UC3842, in a new product build. I'll often
rely on past known-good triples as a starting point, but they all get
fitted extensively enough to know if they're suited to the new app.

If purchasing wants to add a vendor after the papers are finalized,
it's their tough luck - they've already got the three and there has to
be SIGNIFIGANT cost savings to justify even thinking about it, never
mind running the 'new' part through it's paces, after-the-fact. The
best you can offer is a new internal number, including the new part,
to be adopted in the 'next' product, where used. It can be vetted
then, for that new use, then possibly be worked into the older builds,
based on proven performance.
Click to expand...

Engineering qualifies parts here; never purchasing.

If whoever's money we're (I'm) spending says 'go do it', well, nuff
said. If it's my own nickel, I'll usually find the time to beat up a
new candidate to my own satisfaction.

The worst position you can be in, is to find out that a single-sourced
part isn't doing what it claims as a basic minimum function - you need
a completely different approach, that avoids the part entirely, in
your back pocket, as an escape route. - and about two bushels of
unscheduled man-hours in which to make the escape.
Click to expand...

There are tons of sole-source parts, and some turn out to be bad. It
usually takes a board spin to fix that.
 
legg wrote...
For a 2 or 3 terminal device you should probably stick to the
worst case guaranteed performance, in multisourcing.

If you're pushing the spec beyond that, you have to generate
your own internal part number, and qualify/restrict vendors.

With more pins and internal complexity, ALL part numbers are
basically an internal qoal excercise. I have to qualify at
least three sources for something as basic as a UC3842, in a
new product build. I'll often rely on past known-good triples
as a starting point, but they all get fitted extensively enough
to know if they're suited to the new app.

If purchasing wants to add a vendor after the papers are finalized,
it's their tough luck - they've already got the three and there has
to be SIGNIFIGANT cost savings to justify even thinking about it,
never mind running the 'new' part through it's paces, after-the-fact.
The best you can offer is a new internal number, including the new
part, to be adopted in the 'next' product, where used. It can be
vetted then, for that new use, then possibly be worked into the
older builds, based on proven performance.

If whoever's money we're (I'm) spending says 'go do it', well, nuff
said. If it's my own nickel, I'll usually find the time to beat up
a new candidate to my own satisfaction.

The worst position you can be in, is to find out that a single-sourced
part isn't doing what it claims as a basic minimum function - you need
a completely different approach, that avoids the part entirely, in
your back pocket, as an escape route. - and about two bushels of
unscheduled man-hours in which to make the escape.

RL
Click to expand...

Good advice!


--
Thanks,
- Win
 
On 2019-10-10 10:41, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On 10 Oct 2019 05:05:17 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

On 9 Oct 2019, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

2n7002k.
You guys would like the very nice OnSemi datasheet I have
for the OnSemi version. Online I only the see the
Fairchild version though -- not as detailed & helpful.

Octopart has ON Semi version if you go down to 2N7002KT1G.

I've got some products where the classic 2N7002 is better
than any more modern stuff we've tried. In particular,
the Fairchild part will switch 50 volts in under 1 ns,
wildly different from what the data sheet suggests.

What we need is a fast p-channel equivalent.

And some fast p-GaN fets. I'm using them in totem poles, but the upper
gate driver gets really messy.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/izvf0thpe5ddty9/T577B_Vp50.JPG?raw=1





Very pretty. Fast GaN PFETs might be possible!
Click to expand...

<https://phys.org/news/2019-09-unveils-route-high-hole-mobility.html>

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top