Your favorite 10 analog IC's

[Pig Bladder]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:35:36 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:29:25 -0500, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
thegreatone@example.com says...
[snip]

My all-time best sellers: 1488, 1489

Still get residuals?

No :-(

I was just a 24 year old kid when I designed those, and I thought that
designing was just for fun and that Motorola would always take care of
me ;-)

Ah, so reality bit you in the butt, and in retaliation, you became
a cantankerous old crank, and joined the neocons because that's where
the cantankerous old cranks go to mollify their self-hatred by projecting
it onto "the enemy," thereby rationalizing mass murder in the name of
"Freedom."

You wouldn't recognize "Freedom" if it jumped up and bit you in the butt
either.

Good Luck!
--
The Pig Bladder On A Stick

 

[Robert]

<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1108556139.014946.232630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

VCA etc etc.
Must have some awfully brainy people in Norwood, MA.
M

Barry Gilbert comes to mind. Google for "Barry Gilbert" with "Analog
Devices" and you get some interesting hits. Jim Thompson is proud of
the analog multiplier he did for Motorola, but Barry Gilbert is the guy
who got it right, amongst a wide variety of other spectacular
successes.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Though I've heard he always said/says that it should be the "Jones/Gilbert"
Cell multiplier.

And with a quick look you can find the same disclaimer at:
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/sscs/apr03/jssc2.html

"... low-noise commutating mixer. This is a very important mode of use, and
the form has become known as the "Gilbert Mixer," in both its BJT and more
recent MOS embodiments. It should be noted that, while processing these
early multiplier patents, this more basic form of the core was found
embedded in a patent concerning a synchronous demodulator by H.E. Jones,
issued in 1963. In spite of strenuous efforts to correct this incorrect
assignment at conferences, in Short Courses, and at informal gatherings, the
name persists. "

Robert

 

[Nico Coesel]

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

My all-time best sellers: 1488, 1489

Is it possible that every electronic device containing more than 3
chips contains something you have designed originally (and others
copied / improved over time)?

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <hut611lj5okpq0f5jmpampm75nfcqgcbgp@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:12:38 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



Ken Smith wrote:


The "zero power" version on the 22V10 like TICPAL22V10Z is handy in
battery powered stuff.

Now *that* is a good digital catch-all.

The Xilinx Coolrunner flash CPLDs (and similar) are the next gen of
this sort of thing.

The CoolRunner product was actually developed by Philips. Xilinx bought
it away from them and promptly killed off the 5V version of the product
line.

I used the 5V version in quite a few places. It could drive the gate of a
small power MOSFET directly, intefaced nicely to other 5V logic, had
fairly good speed and a nice set of development tools from Philips. It
also had "industry standard" pinout (same as Altera) so you were not
locked into their product if you had the current.

If you wanted to be a bit Mickey Mouse about things, the device could be
made to work as the inverter in a crystal oscillator.

The smallest ones are something like 4x the logic
of a a 22V10, have a more general architecture, and cost something
like $1.20. They are surface-mount and have to be programmed on-board,
which can be a small nuisance.

I used the PZ5032 when it was Philips. It is in a PLCC package and is
programmed in a standard programmer.

Today, Lattice has the lowest current CPLDs of any size. If there
developnment tools didn't suck so bad, I may have considered them. My
current project uses a Cypress part.

I expect Xilinx to cancel the entire CoolRunner product line at some
point.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Pooh Bear]

Louis Levin wrote:

Given the wide range of experience of people in this group, I thought
it might be informative to ask:

What are your favorite 10 analog IC's?

By a "favorite" IC, I mean one that covers the widest range of
applications and perhaps replaces several of an earlier design. Or
maybe one that you keep coming back to that solves a particular
problem easily.

TL07x
NE5532
NJM4560
NJM4565
NJM4580
LM339/393
LM317
uA78xx
uA79xx
TL431

With so many new IC's entering the market, many of them being rather
specialized, I personally find it difficult to keep up.

All the above have been around for ages. But then I'm not doing anything
esoteric that needs those 'bleeding edge' parts.


Graham

 

[Fred Bartoli]

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:cv089d$u9f$1@blue.rahul.net...

In article <hut611lj5okpq0f5jmpampm75nfcqgcbgp@4ax.com>,

<snipped the bad xilinx joke>

Today, Lattice has the lowest current CPLDs of any size. If there
developnment tools didn't suck so bad, I may have considered them. My
current project uses a Cypress part.

I don't remember the figures for the Lattice parts, but have a look at Atmel
ATF15xxASL parts.
These are still 5V and pretty low power.


--
Thanks,
Fred.

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Larkin wrote...

Phil Hobbs wrote:

TL011 TO-92 current mirror--discontinued years ago. I still
cry sometimes.

Zetex has some current mirrors; don't know if they're comparable.

They are not. Current accuracy (matching) is much poorer, and
they are not Wilson mirrors (see AoE page 89) like the TI parts,
which means they suffer dramatically from Early-effect errors.

I liked the TL014, which with its 4x current step-up was more
practical for use in battery-operated circuits. I still have
a few in my inventory, but am "saving" them... <sigh>


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <4sQQd.627$DC6.615@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
[.. 4046 ..]

most of the time. You can straighten that out nicely with external
references and stuff but then the price and size advantages kind of
fizzle away. Might as well build a PLL from scratch, at least for some
higher frequeny applications.

I'd like it a lot better if the HC versions didn't tend to have that
sudden hook on the end of the curve. The CD4046 just isn't fast enough on
+5V.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:28:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

Sloman, As usual speaketh thru his asshole.

Never misses an chance for an insult, does he? He must troll the
Usenet looking for opportunities to offend; truly a thankless job.

John

 

[keith]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:35:36 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:29:25 -0500, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

In article <pv7511lnjth992deqldk1i47sq0msjns59@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...
[snip]

My all-time best sellers: 1488, 1489

Still get residuals?

No :-(

I was just a 24 year old kid when I designed those, and I thought that
designing was just for fun and that Motorola would always take care of
me ;-)

I thought the same thing (not Moto), and have done reasonably well
(whew!). I don't collect residuals either. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Paul Burke]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:45:47 -0800, the renowned John Larkin


Why do they have to be programmed on board? Can't you get a <$200
programming adapter for the little guys?

At least for the smaller Xilinx Coolrunner parts (I've used up to 256
cells), you don't need an expensive adapter. I've got one by me
constructed from a D25, a length of ribbon cable and a few resistors. It
used to be in an appnote- don't know if it still exists. And ISP is the
most WONDERFUL thing for development, no pulling the thing out,
reprogramming, pushing it back in (POP- the wrong way round), bent a
pin, dropped it and trod on it, buy another.

Paul Burke

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <37j1qgF5bc7hrU1@individual.net>,
Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote:
[...]

cells), you don't need an expensive adapter. I've got one by me
constructed from a D25, a length of ribbon cable and a few resistors.

I use the same cable to program Xilinx, Altera and Cypress parts. Both
Altera and Cypresses tools output JAM files that work in my JAM player
program.

This makes life much easier on the production floor. One common cable
programs all the boards. Our production quantities are not so high that a
given test station can be set aside for a given product.

used to be in an appnote- don't know if it still exists. And ISP is the

I still have a copy because I kept the Philips data book.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:48:03 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:20:32 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
richgrise@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:03:09 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:45:47 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:12:38 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
Ken Smith wrote:
The "zero power" version on the 22V10 like TICPAL22V10Z is handy in
battery powered stuff.
Now *that* is a good digital catch-all.
The Xilinx Coolrunner flash CPLDs (and similar) are the next gen of
this sort of thing. The smallest ones are something like 4x the logic
of a a 22V10, have a more general architecture, and cost something
like $1.20.
That's a very reasonable price for many applications.
They are surface-mount and have to be programmed on-board,
which can be a small nuisance.

Why do they have to be programmed on board? Can't you get a <$200
programming adapter for the little guys?

Maybe because it's surface-mount? I've never heard of a socket for a
surface-mount part.

Thanks,
Rich

You've led a sheltered life, then. There are not many *production*
sockets for SMT parts (with the exception of those for PLCC packages),
but plenty of test/burn-in/programming sockets. I don't think there is
an IC package made that does not have a mating socket of some kind.

Here's one for a part I'm working with right now-- a TQFP-100 SMT part
with 0.5mm lead pitch and a 14mm square body:

http://www.emulation.com/pdf/skt010.pdf

Well, I seem to have learned something new today. Guess I can go back
to bed now. ;-)

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Joel Kolstad]

"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7e71ca2e8908298992c@news.individual.net...

I used a dozen or so of these BGA sockets a couple of years ago. We
still use them for test systems. At $3000 each I don't recommend them
for volume production though. ;-)

Aren't the newest Pentium processors a BGA-type package? I can't imagine
the sockets for those go for more than, say, even $10!

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <ss6dnVF6DannU4nfRVn-qg@comcast.com>,
JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com says...

"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7e71ca2e8908298992c@news.individual.net...
I used a dozen or so of these BGA sockets a couple of years ago. We
still use them for test systems. At $3000 each I don't recommend them
for volume production though. ;-)

Aren't the newest Pentium processors a BGA-type package? I can't imagine
the sockets for those go for more than, say, even $10!

LGA (sorta a BGA; hold the balls), I think. My bet is that an

Opteron/Athlon64 socket (940/939) goes for a bit north of $10 and that
the Pentium socket isn't any different. There is also a difference
between a use-once socket and a production/test/programming socket.

--
Keith

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:06:29 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

We just started soldering our own BGAs, some 456-pin, 1 mm pitch
Xilinx parts, $105 each. Everybody was fairly terrified, and surprised
that it just works

I'm sure it doesn't 'just work'. What technique do you use?
Scares me and I'm fearless.

Bob

 

[Joerg]

Hello Ken,

I'd like it a lot better if the HC versions didn't tend to have that
sudden hook on the end of the curve. The CD4046 just isn't fast enough on
+5V.

The 74HC4046 is a lot faster but yes, you'd have to stay clear of that
hook. Also, the linearity isn't sufficient for most of my apps. At least
for V/F conversion. Then again much of those tasks are slowly migrating
to micro controllers.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Tim Shoppa]

I don't know why the 3046 went

Well, the CA3046 went, but Intersil still makes NPN transistor arrays
of higher performance. The HFA3046, for example, is in the SOIC
package and the transistors have a ft of 8 GHz. Costs 20 times as much
as a CA3046!

Tim.

 

[John Larkin]

On 17 Feb 2005 17:37:57 -0800, "Tim Shoppa" <shoppa@trailing-edge.com>
wrote:

I don't know why the 3046 went

Well, the CA3046 went, but Intersil still makes NPN transistor arrays
of higher performance. The HFA3046, for example, is in the SOIC
package and the transistors have a ft of 8 GHz. Costs 20 times as much
as a CA3046!

Tim.

NEC has some fast arrays. Too fast, often.

John

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:26:39 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

I'm sure it doesn't 'just work'.

Gosh, they all seem to work to us.

I wasn't being snotty. What I meant was, it must be non-trivial.


Bob