• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 2 answers
  • Subscribers 49 subscribers
  • Views 136 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

TLV7021: Right alternative for NJU77241F

Kento Sato
Intellectual 830 points
Part Number: TLV7021
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: LMV331-N, LMV331, TL331

hi team,

Do we have P2P(Same pin layout) alternative for NJU77241F?

Best regards,

Kento

  • +1
    Guru 257000 points

    The NJU77241F uses the TL331-type pinout. So the LMV331/LMV331-N might work, but it does not have rail-to-rail inputs.

    As far as I can see, all the other open-drain comparators in SOT-23 have a different pinout.

  • 0 in reply to Clemens Ladisch
    TI__Mastermind 23970 points

    Thanks Kento for posting your question and Clemens for your response.

    Unfortunately, LMV331 does not have the same pinout as TL331.  A part that would be same layout for you to consider instead is a part that will be releasing in August (TL331LV-SOT23).  This is our new 5V version of the TL331 and is pin compatible to NJU77241F.  We released in SC70 package first but I believe you need SOT23 which releases in August.  If you have someone from TI that calls on your account, you could obtain samples prior to full release.  Another option would be to try the SC70 package first to make sure it meets your system needs and then go to production with the SOT23 once it is released if that is your preference.

    Chuck

    www.ti.com/.../lm393lv.pdf

  • 0 in reply to Chuck Sins
    TI__Mastermind 23970 points

    Sorry for sending too soon.  I need to correct one part of my response.  The SOT23 option that would be pin compatible is still set for release in August and samples are available today but we have decided not to offer the SC70   So my comment about testing with the SC70 was incorrect.  My apologies.

    Chuck