Tool/software:
Hi,
We are experiencing a problem with the product coded LM339DR. Tests we perform under the same conditions give different results. The test document is attached. What could be the reason?
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.
Tool/software:
Hi,
We are experiencing a problem with the product coded LM339DR. Tests we perform under the same conditions give different results. The test document is attached. What could be the reason?
Hello Cagri,
The change in symbolization is normal. There was a many device wide PCN announcing this change.
Can you share the LM339 device pin waveforms?
Cargi,
I was talking about the sample on the right side. The left side does not look correct. It might be valid if it was many decades old. I didn't look that far back. Which sample is not working as expected?
The product coded LM339 DNWYHQG G4 gives smoother results. Total harmonic distortion is smoother. Testing was done by changing the integrated circuit in the circuit, there is no difference. We are trying to understand the reason for this.
Cagri,
The product coded LM339 DNWYHQG G4 gives smoother results.
Understood. My remaining question is the DNWYHQS very old or is it a non TI device. If it is not TI, then that could easily make a significant performance difference. If very old, the difference is still not obvious.
As far as getting better performance going forward, the choices I see are below.
1) Find more date codes starting with a letter, I don't know how to do this. TI doesn't make them.
2) Blindly trying alternative options, like LM339B
3) Debug why LM339 on right is not working as desired. I'll need waveforms and schematic to start that.