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.

TCAN1043A-Q1: Package Difference: TCAN1043A vs TCAN1043G

Part Number: TCAN1043A-Q1
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TCAN1043G-Q1

Hi there,

When comparing the package dimensions of the TCAN1043G and TCAN1043A, the dimensions circled in red below are different.

Question1:

 Why are the dimensions of this part different?

Question2:

 I would like to understand the variation in the measured values for the dimensions circled in red.
 Therefore, please provide the min, max, median and σ of the observed values of this dimension in multiple samples.

Best regards.

  • Hi Keiji,

    This is the same package for both images, our 14-pin D package, which is a 14-pin SOIC package. The package has not changed between these two images. The one on the right appears to be showing a maximum and minimum, while the one on the left is showing a minimum and typical. The dimensions between the two parts are not different. A land pattern for the TCAN1043G-Q1 should be compatible with the TCAN1043A-Q1.

    I am going to talk to our documentation team and try to figure out why the two data sheets are displaying different versions of the same packaging information.

    Best,

    Danny

  • Hi Danny,

    Thank you for your reply.

    Please continue to investigate and share your findings.

    Even if the two packages are the same, could you please provide the actual measurements of the dimensions circled in red ?

    This is to verify the validity of the pad design of our products.

    Best regards,

    Keiji

  • Keiji-san,

    Looks to me like the left image is the one that will be on our newest data sheets. Those numbers represent the maximum and minimum as applicable for your pad design. I don't know if we have variance/deviation data we'd be able to publish, but I'm still working with my peers to determine this.

    Best,

    Danny