• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 62 subscribers
  • Views 71 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.

UCC28742: Searching TI solution

Kygo Cheng
Expert 6830 points
Part Number: UCC28742
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: LM5023, UCC28600

Hi Team,

There is a good new that Customer is searching TI solution

Do we have a product that can compete with "LD5523EGL" ?

https://www.leadtrend.com.tw/images/cgcustom/img020201214172553.pdf

1. It seem that UCC28742 can fight with LD5523EGL ,is there anything I need to pay attention to when replacing with our products?
2.Please suggest a best solution

3.Please provide comparison table and I will propose to customer ,THX

  • +1
    TI__Intellectual 1195 points

    Hi Kygo,

    Thanks for sharing the good news and competitor OPN with datasheet.

    1. Without commenting on too many specifics, to replace LD5523EGL with UCC28742, pay attention to pinout and multi-mode operation. The feedback regulation and protections appear comparable.  

         While these devices have similar packages, the exact mapping of functions is not the same, make sure to recalculate values like VS/FB resistors, feedback network components, and more. You can use the following excel design calculator https://www.ti.com/lit/zip/sluc652 to get started. 

         The transformer/coupled inductor, the heart and workhorse of any flyback power supply, will need to be changed to accommodate/optimize for the appropriate peak and rms currents for the new design. Our WEBENCH® tool should help get that started

    2. Without knowing more about the application including the power level, and what features the customer prefers, it's hard to say for sure.

         But you could also evaluate the LM5023 and the UCC28600. In general, quasi-resonant controllers may offer some efficiency and EMI advantages over valley-switching controllers like UCC28742. But the difference may not be appreciable/valuable depending on the design requirements. To my knowledge, none of our dedicated flyback controllers have both CCM and QR like the lead trend solution. 

    3. Which solutions would you like to be in the comparison table, and what metrics would the customer prefer I use in the comparison?

    Regards,

    Andrew