Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #452581
| From | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: bad, better delay circuits |
| Date | 2017-03-19 10:32 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <oam860$kf$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <1roqcclua35sdrn6jduc9q0folr3fg8oqu@4ax.com> <oakakg$ars$1@dont-email.me> <o5grcchojd4qvdekiujn7qm31gos9bovol@4ax.com> |
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message news:o5grcchojd4qvdekiujn7qm31gos9bovol@4ax.com... > It computes to 200 mV with a 22pF cap, but the channel is still > conducting for part of the gate turn-off swing, so it will be even > less. Needs a breadboard or a good Spice model to be sure. Rohm provides a LEVEL=3 SPICE model. No package parasitics. Seems okay, but I haven't done detailed comparisons or anything. They do seem to be ESD or temperature sensitive. Between the small size and my loose ESD controls (namely, no antistatic mat and such), they're a bugger to hand solder reliably... I think there are some dual MOSFETs of similar stature, too, which may be of interest to you. Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-18 10:04 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-18 12:29 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-18 16:15 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-18 19:08 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-18 17:02 -0500
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-18 16:25 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 19:40 -0400
Re: bad, better delay circuits dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-19 10:42 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-19 15:37 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-19 22:24 -0500
Re: bad, better delay circuits dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-20 08:58 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-20 09:42 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-03-20 23:55 -0800
Re: bad, better delay circuits "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-21 00:46 -0500
Re: bad, better delay circuits bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-21 22:54 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-22 02:10 -0500
Re: bad, better delay circuits rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 18:47 -0400
Re: bad, better delay circuits Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-20 09:55 +1100
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-19 16:12 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-19 10:32 -0500
Re: bad, better delay circuits Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-19 13:36 +1100
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-18 19:44 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-19 15:58 +1100
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-19 15:43 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-19 17:54 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-20 12:44 +1100
Re: bad, better delay circuits Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-20 12:22 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-20 15:49 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 23:51 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-19 08:22 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-20 17:55 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-22 08:54 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 16:02 +0000
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-22 09:47 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-22 10:31 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-22 10:52 -0700
csiph-web