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.

ISO7341FC: Replace ISO7241CDW with ISO7341FCDW

Part Number: ISO7341FC
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: ISO7341C, ISO7241C,

Hi team,

The digital Isolator originally used by the customer's product is ISO7241CDW, and there is no problem. The isolated interface is RS-485 transceiver, the maximum communication rate is 57kbps, and the load is PLC. When using ISO7341FCDW for alternative test, it is found that there is a packet loss rate of 3%.

The test environment is the same. A total of 10 boards have been tested, all of which are pin to pin to replace ISO7241CDW. The test results are about 3% packet loss rate.

Can ISO7241CDW be replaced by ISO7341FCDW ? If not, why

Best Regards,

Amy Luo

  • Hi Amy,

    Thanks for reaching out.

    ISO7341 and ISO7341 follow the same internal circuit architecture and are similar in many ways, hence, ISO7341 should safely replace ISO7241 without any issues. ISO7341 being a newer generation device compared to ISO7241, its overall performance is going to be better than ISO7241.

    But I do see that customer has used ISO7341FC (default LOW state) to replace ISO7241C (default HIGH state). If their application is depending on the default state, then this difference could lead to data error. Please ask customer to use ISO7341C (full part number - ISO7341CDW) instead and I expect these packet losses to go away.

    Let me know if you have any further questions, thanks.

    Koteshwar Rao