• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 19 subscribers
  • Views 330 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

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.

SN74LVC14ARGYR - conflicting data on temperature range

An Onimous
Prodigy 30 points

In the PDF datasheet there is conflicting data on the temperature range of this device.

On page 2, it shows the device as have Ta of -40C to 85C.

On page 11 (in the addendum), it shows it as -40C to 125C.

Product page calls out 125C, but that might have been dependent upon which number was pulled from where in the datasheet...

At least some distributors are calling out 85C.

And I do note that NXP's version (while it has the same 0.5mm pitch, it does NOT share the same footprint! Very disappointing!) is rated to 125C.

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 46480 points

    NXP and TI have the same footprint.  We have recently upgraded the temp range to -40 to 125.

    The first page has a mistake and we will correct it.

  • 0 in reply to Chris Cockrill
    Prodigy 30 points

    Thank you for the quick reply.

    I am glad it is indeed rated for 125C.

    However, I must DISAGREE with the comment about a common footprint...

    NXP and Fairchild have packages that nominally measure 3x2.5mm, with the "end" pins at 0.5mm pitch, same pitch as the pins on the "sides". They appear to support a common footprint between these manufacturers.

    TI's part has a nominally package size of 3.5x3.5mm, with the "end" pins at 1.5mm pitch, differing from the 0.5mm pitch of its "sides".

    Could a footprint be "FORCED" to work for both? I don't see how...

    Yes, the "end" pins could be doubled up, with the footprint having 4 pins on the "ends" - only two of which would be used by a given device.

    But the REAL problem is the embedded pad on all three...

    The TI embedded pad is 2.05mm (??) square, and encroaches on the required clearance to the inner edge of the pads for the side pins for the other vendors, which are nominally 1.7mm max apart.Similar embedded pad problems occur for the "end" pins. There would be less than 0.1mm of clearance between the pin's pad and the edge of TI's metal embedded pad.

    The pin pads would have be extended beyond the narrower Fairchild and NXP parts, which would put down more solder paste than might be prudent, which would make worse the problem of clearance to the embedded pad.

    TI requires the soldering of their embedded pad, per datasheets and package details.

    I don't see how these parts could share a common footprint in any reasonable IPC standard sense.

    (Ideally if this is to be a non-trivial discussion, it would be broken out into a new thread. Can a moderator help with this?)

  • 0 in reply to An Onimous
    TI__Mastermind 46480 points

    I did not read that comment correctly. When you said foot print I was thinking pinout. I looked at the pinout that does match.

      I looked at our cross ref table and it does say not a direct replacement. We dont have a packaging forum that I know of but if you would like to send me an Email I can put you in contact with our packaging expert.

     c-cockrill@ti.com