elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Components - audio recording on IC -help wanted
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 243, 244, 245, 246, 247 Next
Vince
Guest
Guest
Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:53 am
On 08:58 10 Nov 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
Quote:
Vince wrote
Arno wrote
mike <not_at_here.invalid> wrote
Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause
electrical problems on the PATA cables. Is it really as safe
as he suggests it is?
http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&decor_int
=27
Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption. I
had this with a burner that did not support data checksums on
UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but the
standard does not require it before UDMA 4. For all UDMA
levels you can get command corruption, checksums on commands
are not present before SATA.
It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within
minutes. Cable quality can influence that in both directions.
The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from
intereference.
True, but neither did the original 40 wire cables either.
Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal
and ground) as twisted pairs.
Some do, some dont.
Don't know how much difference this makes.
Not much.
Arno wrote
mike <not_at_here.invalid> wrote
Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause
electrical problems on the PATA cables. Is it really as safe
as he suggests it is?
http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&decor_int
=27
Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption. I
had this with a burner that did not support data checksums on
UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but the
standard does not require it before UDMA 4. For all UDMA
levels you can get command corruption, checksums on commands
are not present before SATA.
It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within
minutes. Cable quality can influence that in both directions.
The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from
intereference.
True, but neither did the original 40 wire cables either.
Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal
and ground) as twisted pairs.
Some do, some dont.
Don't know how much difference this makes.
Not much.
My impression is that the 80-way PATA cables were a big improvement
on the old 40-way cables. Does anyone know of any data or tests
which shows how much improvement they gave?
In this thread Igor Batinic says twisted pair is quite an
improvement over untwisted. Does anyone know of any tests or
comparisons for this?
baron
Guest
Guest
Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:07 am
Vince Inscribed thus:
Quote:
On 08:58 10 Nov 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
Vince wrote
Arno wrote
mike <not_at_here.invalid> wrote
Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause
electrical problems on the PATA cables. Is it really as safe
as he suggests it is?
http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&decor_int
=27
Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption. I
had this with a burner that did not support data checksums on
UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but the
standard does not require it before UDMA 4. For all UDMA
levels you can get command corruption, checksums on commands
are not present before SATA.
It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within
minutes. Cable quality can influence that in both directions.
The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from
intereference.
True, but neither did the original 40 wire cables either.
Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal
and ground) as twisted pairs.
Some do, some dont.
Don't know how much difference this makes.
Not much.
My impression is that the 80-way PATA cables were a big improvement
on the old 40-way cables. Does anyone know of any data or tests
which shows how much improvement they gave?
In this thread Igor Batinic says twisted pair is quite an
improvement over untwisted. Does anyone know of any tests or
comparisons for this?
Vince wrote
Arno wrote
mike <not_at_here.invalid> wrote
Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause
electrical problems on the PATA cables. Is it really as safe
as he suggests it is?
http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&decor_int
=27
Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption. I
had this with a burner that did not support data checksums on
UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but the
standard does not require it before UDMA 4. For all UDMA
levels you can get command corruption, checksums on commands
are not present before SATA.
It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within
minutes. Cable quality can influence that in both directions.
The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from
intereference.
True, but neither did the original 40 wire cables either.
Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal
and ground) as twisted pairs.
Some do, some dont.
Don't know how much difference this makes.
Not much.
My impression is that the 80-way PATA cables were a big improvement
on the old 40-way cables. Does anyone know of any data or tests
which shows how much improvement they gave?
In this thread Igor Batinic says twisted pair is quite an
improvement over untwisted. Does anyone know of any tests or
comparisons for this?
The primary point of using 80 conductor cables was impedance matching to
reduce the standing waves at the high data rates. It makes little or
no difference whether they are twisted or not. Theoretically twisting
should improve interference rejection, but I suspect that it would be
very difficult to quantify.
Rolling the cable into a tube or using twisted pairs in a tube, probably
would have some effect on the air circulation inside the case. Doing
smoke tests don't show any real advantage over flat ones. The case
design has to be really poor, like some of the "Philips" machines I've
seen where the thing is so cramped the air circulation is almost nil.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
Arno
Guest
Guest
Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:08 pm
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Vince <spamtrap_at_invalid.com> wrote:
Quote:
On 08:58 10 Nov 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
Vince wrote
Arno wrote
mike <not_at_here.invalid> wrote
Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause
electrical problems on the PATA cables. Is it really as safe
as he suggests it is?
http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&decor_int
=27
Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption. I
had this with a burner that did not support data checksums on
UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but the
standard does not require it before UDMA 4. For all UDMA
levels you can get command corruption, checksums on commands
are not present before SATA.
It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within
minutes. Cable quality can influence that in both directions.
The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from
intereference.
True, but neither did the original 40 wire cables either.
Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal
and ground) as twisted pairs.
Some do, some dont.
Don't know how much difference this makes.
Not much.
My impression is that the 80-way PATA cables were a big improvement
on the old 40-way cables. Does anyone know of any data or tests
which shows how much improvement they gave?
Vince wrote
Arno wrote
mike <not_at_here.invalid> wrote
Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause
electrical problems on the PATA cables. Is it really as safe
as he suggests it is?
http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&decor_int
=27
Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption. I
had this with a burner that did not support data checksums on
UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but the
standard does not require it before UDMA 4. For all UDMA
levels you can get command corruption, checksums on commands
are not present before SATA.
It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within
minutes. Cable quality can influence that in both directions.
The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from
intereference.
True, but neither did the original 40 wire cables either.
Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal
and ground) as twisted pairs.
Some do, some dont.
Don't know how much difference this makes.
Not much.
My impression is that the 80-way PATA cables were a big improvement
on the old 40-way cables. Does anyone know of any data or tests
which shows how much improvement they gave?
Look into the standard. They made UDMA speeds of 66MHz and above
possible by adjusted impedance and inter-wire shilding. It is
not so much about a better cable as one adjusted to what you
intend to send over it.
Quote:
In this thread Igor Batinic says twisted pair is quite an
improvement over untwisted. Does anyone know of any tests or
comparisons for this?
improvement over untwisted. Does anyone know of any tests or
comparisons for this?
That is historic by now. Look into any undergraduate text on
signal transmission.
Arno
--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno_at_wagner.name
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
Igor Batinic
Guest
Guest
Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:36 pm
Hi!
Vince wrote:
Quote:
On 08:58 10 Nov 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
Not much.
My impression is that the 80-way PATA cables were a big improvement on
the old 40-way cables. Does anyone know of any data or tests which
shows how much improvement they gave?
Not much.
My impression is that the 80-way PATA cables were a big improvement on
the old 40-way cables. Does anyone know of any data or tests which
shows how much improvement they gave?
It is hard to find exact tests, cause we'll need separate tests for all
possible combinations - new cable is defined in standard, maybe you can
find some tests via Google.
Quote:
In this thread Igor Batinic says twisted pair is quite an improvement
over untwisted. Does anyone know of any tests or comparisons for this?
over untwisted. Does anyone know of any tests or comparisons for this?
A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore, whenever you have
any kind of high-speed copper connection, twisted pair must be used to
reduce the noise in the cable. You can find, also, twisted ribbon cable
(pretty standard cable in SCSI).
Best regards,
Iggy
Rod Speed
Guest
Guest
Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:46 pm
Vince wrote
Quote:
Rod Speed wrote
Vince wrote
Arno wrote
mike <not_at_here.invalid> wrote
Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause
electrical problems on the PATA cables. Is it really
as safe as he suggests it is?
http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&decor_int=27
Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption.
I had this with a burner that did not support data checksums
on UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but
the standard does not require it before UDMA 4. For all
UDMA levels you can get command corruption, checksums
on commands are not present before SATA.
It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within
minutes. Cable quality can influence that in both directions.
The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from intereference.
True, but neither did the original 40 wire cables either.
Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal and ground) as twisted pairs.
Some do, some dont.
Don't know how much difference this makes.
Not much.
My impression is that the 80-way PATA cables were a big improvement on the old 40-way cables.
Vince wrote
Arno wrote
mike <not_at_here.invalid> wrote
Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause
electrical problems on the PATA cables. Is it really
as safe as he suggests it is?
http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&decor_int=27
Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption.
I had this with a burner that did not support data checksums
on UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but
the standard does not require it before UDMA 4. For all
UDMA levels you can get command corruption, checksums
on commands are not present before SATA.
It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within
minutes. Cable quality can influence that in both directions.
The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from intereference.
True, but neither did the original 40 wire cables either.
Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal and ground) as twisted pairs.
Some do, some dont.
Don't know how much difference this makes.
Not much.
My impression is that the 80-way PATA cables were a big improvement on the old 40-way cables.
Only because the controllers refused to use the faster modes unless an 80 wire cable is used.
Quote:
Does anyone know of any data or tests which shows how much improvement they gave?
It wouldnt be that hard to test, just make up a 40 wire cable that
pretends to be 80 wire as far as the controller is concerned and
monitor the SMART error data. Dunno if anyone has bothered.
Quote:
In this thread Igor Batinic says twisted pair is quite an improvement
over untwisted. Does anyone know of any tests or comparisons for this?
over untwisted. Does anyone know of any tests or comparisons for this?
There have been plenty on the general concept. Presumably
someone has done that with the round IDE cables.
nobody >
Guest
Guest
Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:26 am
Igor Batinic wrote:
Quote:
A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore, whenever you have
any kind of high-speed copper connection, twisted pair must be used to
reduce the noise in the cable. You can find, also, twisted ribbon cable
(pretty standard cable in SCSI).
Best regards,
Iggy
"twisted pair must be used" isn't totally accurate.
TP technology has been the design of choice for over a century, but it
doesn't lend itself to two constraints on cabling for computers.. cheap
and compact.
The sig-gnd-sig-gnd layout of an 80 wire EIDE cable does work well.
I've seen/used twisted-pair ribbon cables, but I didn't have to buy them.
Igor Batinic
Guest
Guest
Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:40 pm
Hi!
nobody > wrote:
Quote:
Igor Batinic wrote:
A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore, whenever you
have any kind of high-speed copper connection, twisted pair must be
used to reduce the noise in the cable. You can find, also, twisted
ribbon cable (pretty standard cable in SCSI).
"twisted pair must be used" isn't totally accurate.
A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore, whenever you
have any kind of high-speed copper connection, twisted pair must be
used to reduce the noise in the cable. You can find, also, twisted
ribbon cable (pretty standard cable in SCSI).
"twisted pair must be used" isn't totally accurate.
It was more a figure of speech than a technical law.
)
But, of course, it is in specific areas.
Quote:
TP technology has been the design of choice for over a century, but it
doesn't lend itself to two constraints on cabling for computers.. cheap
and compact.
The sig-gnd-sig-gnd layout of an 80 wire EIDE cable does work well.
doesn't lend itself to two constraints on cabling for computers.. cheap
and compact.
The sig-gnd-sig-gnd layout of an 80 wire EIDE cable does work well.
Of course it does, if you keep it the way it is supposed to.
Which means, if you don't cut it and try to create "rounded" cable of
it. Then you can expect some problems. Therefore good rounded cables
have completely different cable schematics.
Quote:
I've seen/used twisted-pair ribbon cables, but I didn't have to buy them.
It was almost a non-written standard in all latest SCSI implementations.
Of course you will not need it for ATA implementation (and I doubt you
can find something like that).
For instance, IBM FRU PN 37L5558:
http://www.aykat.com/ebay/kabel/kabel_scsi_5x_68pin/kabel_scsi_5x_68pin_3.jpg
With best regards,
Iggy
Tri Cutter
Guest
Guest
Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:13 pm
On 13:40 12 Nov 2009, Igor Batinic wrote:
Quote:
Hi!
nobody > wrote:
Igor Batinic wrote:
A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore,
whenever you have any kind of high-speed copper connection,
twisted pair must be used to reduce the noise in the cable.
You can find, also, twisted ribbon cable (pretty standard
cable in SCSI).
"twisted pair must be used" isn't totally accurate.
It was more a figure of speech than a technical law.)
But, of course, it is in specific areas.
TP technology has been the design of choice for over a
century, but it doesn't lend itself to two constraints on
cabling for computers.. cheap and compact.
The sig-gnd-sig-gnd layout of an 80 wire EIDE cable does work
well.
Of course it does, if you keep it the way it is supposed to.
Which means, if you don't cut it and try to create "rounded"
cable of it. Then you can expect some problems. Therefore good
rounded cables have completely different cable schematics.
I've seen/used twisted-pair ribbon cables, but I didn't have
to buy them.
It was almost a non-written standard in all latest SCSI
implementations. Of course you will not need it for ATA
implementation (and I doubt you can find something like that).
For instance, IBM FRU PN 37L5558:
http://www.aykat.com/ebay/kabel/kabel_scsi_5x_68pin/
kabel_scsi_5x_68pin_3.jpg
nobody > wrote:
Igor Batinic wrote:
A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore,
whenever you have any kind of high-speed copper connection,
twisted pair must be used to reduce the noise in the cable.
You can find, also, twisted ribbon cable (pretty standard
cable in SCSI).
"twisted pair must be used" isn't totally accurate.
It was more a figure of speech than a technical law.
)
But, of course, it is in specific areas.
TP technology has been the design of choice for over a
century, but it doesn't lend itself to two constraints on
cabling for computers.. cheap and compact.
The sig-gnd-sig-gnd layout of an 80 wire EIDE cable does work
well.
Of course it does, if you keep it the way it is supposed to.
Which means, if you don't cut it and try to create "rounded"
cable of it. Then you can expect some problems. Therefore good
rounded cables have completely different cable schematics.
I've seen/used twisted-pair ribbon cables, but I didn't have
to buy them.
It was almost a non-written standard in all latest SCSI
implementations. Of course you will not need it for ATA
implementation (and I doubt you can find something like that).
For instance, IBM FRU PN 37L5558:
http://www.aykat.com/ebay/kabel/kabel_scsi_5x_68pin/
kabel_scsi_5x_68pin_3.jpg
That look good.
Presumably the twisting doesn't create extra problems so (apart
form cost) why aren't PATA cables like that?
Rod Speed
Guest
Guest
Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:08 pm
Tri Cutter wrote:
Quote:
On 13:40 12 Nov 2009, Igor Batinic wrote:
Hi!
nobody > wrote:
Igor Batinic wrote:
A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore,
whenever you have any kind of high-speed copper connection,
twisted pair must be used to reduce the noise in the cable.
You can find, also, twisted ribbon cable (pretty standard
cable in SCSI).
"twisted pair must be used" isn't totally accurate.
It was more a figure of speech than a technical law.)
But, of course, it is in specific areas.
TP technology has been the design of choice for over a
century, but it doesn't lend itself to two constraints on
cabling for computers.. cheap and compact.
The sig-gnd-sig-gnd layout of an 80 wire EIDE cable does work
well.
Of course it does, if you keep it the way it is supposed to.
Which means, if you don't cut it and try to create "rounded"
cable of it. Then you can expect some problems. Therefore good
rounded cables have completely different cable schematics.
I've seen/used twisted-pair ribbon cables, but I didn't have
to buy them.
It was almost a non-written standard in all latest SCSI
implementations. Of course you will not need it for ATA
implementation (and I doubt you can find something like that).
For instance, IBM FRU PN 37L5558:
http://www.aykat.com/ebay/kabel/kabel_scsi_5x_68pin/
kabel_scsi_5x_68pin_3.jpg
That look good.
Presumably the twisting doesn't create extra problems so (apart
form cost) why aren't PATA cables like that?
Hi!
nobody > wrote:
Igor Batinic wrote:
A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore,
whenever you have any kind of high-speed copper connection,
twisted pair must be used to reduce the noise in the cable.
You can find, also, twisted ribbon cable (pretty standard
cable in SCSI).
"twisted pair must be used" isn't totally accurate.
It was more a figure of speech than a technical law.
)
But, of course, it is in specific areas.
TP technology has been the design of choice for over a
century, but it doesn't lend itself to two constraints on
cabling for computers.. cheap and compact.
The sig-gnd-sig-gnd layout of an 80 wire EIDE cable does work
well.
Of course it does, if you keep it the way it is supposed to.
Which means, if you don't cut it and try to create "rounded"
cable of it. Then you can expect some problems. Therefore good
rounded cables have completely different cable schematics.
I've seen/used twisted-pair ribbon cables, but I didn't have
to buy them.
It was almost a non-written standard in all latest SCSI
implementations. Of course you will not need it for ATA
implementation (and I doubt you can find something like that).
For instance, IBM FRU PN 37L5558:
http://www.aykat.com/ebay/kabel/kabel_scsi_5x_68pin/
kabel_scsi_5x_68pin_3.jpg
That look good.
Presumably the twisting doesn't create extra problems so (apart
form cost) why aren't PATA cables like that?
Essentially because the traditional 80 wire cable is good enough.
They did go for a much smaller serial cable with SATA.
Proteus IIV
Guest
Guest
Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:48 pm
On Nov 10, 2:41 am, Vince <spamt...@invalid.com> wrote:
Quote:
On 23:10 9 Nov 2009, Arno wrote:
mike <n...@here.invalid> wrote:
Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause electrical
problems on the PATA cables. Is it really as safe as he
suggests it is?
http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&
decor_int=27
Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption. I
had this with a burner that did not support data checksums on
UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but the standard
does not require it before UDMA 4. For all UDMA levels you can
get command corruption, checksums on commands are not present
before SATA.
It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within minutes.
Cable quality can influence that in both directions.
Arno
The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from
intereference.
Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal and
ground) as twisted pairs.
Don't know how much difference this makes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
mike <n...@here.invalid> wrote:
Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause electrical
problems on the PATA cables. Is it really as safe as he
suggests it is?
http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&
decor_int=27
Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption. I
had this with a burner that did not support data checksums on
UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but the standard
does not require it before UDMA 4. For all UDMA levels you can
get command corruption, checksums on commands are not present
before SATA.
It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within minutes.
Cable quality can influence that in both directions.
Arno
The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from
intereference.
Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal and
ground) as twisted pairs.
Don't know how much difference this makes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
TROLL
I AM PROTEUS
Lostgallifreyan
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:36 pm
Boris <boris.kj_at_googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745048_at_c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Quote:
Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?
Boris
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?
Boris
I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I can
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a useful
answer.
ian field
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:32 pm
"Lostgallifreyan" <no-one_at_nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle_at_216.196.109.145...
Quote:
Boris <boris.kj_at_googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745048_at_c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?
Boris
I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I can
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a useful
answer.
6d4a14745048_at_c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?
Boris
I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I can
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a useful
answer.
My ECA book gives: Si-N, 35V, 0.5A, 50MHz and suggests; BC817, BCX19,
2SC3325 or 2SC3341.
Lostgallifreyan
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:35 pm
Boris <boris.kj_at_googlemail.com> wrote in news:91edfe7f-a4da-40e4-b02b-
5324e321e819_at_a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
Quote:
On Jan 9, 4:32 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle_at_216.196.109.145...
Boris <boris...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?
Boris
I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I ca
n
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a use
ful
answer.
My ECA book gives: Si-N, 35V, 0.5A, 50MHz and suggests; BC817, BCX19,
2SC3325 or 2SC3341.
Thanks guys, without having any catalogue , I could have download half
of internet to get any result
Boris
"Lostgallifreyan" <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle_at_216.196.109.145...
Boris <boris...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?
Boris
I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I ca
n
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a use
ful
answer.
My ECA book gives: Si-N, 35V, 0.5A, 50MHz and suggests; BC817, BCX19,
2SC3325 or 2SC3341.
Thanks guys, without having any catalogue , I could have download half
of internet to get any result
Boris
There is a neat shortcut.
Someone told it to me after I'd been wading
through Google and all the parts brokers nonsense out there.
http://www.findchips.com
The name sounds like any other inane parts broker with no actual inventory,
but go there, you'll see it isn't. Once you see a part offered by a couple of
sellers you can likely get a data sheet that is up to date, and further,
Digikey and Mouser have search tools good enough that you have a fair chance
of rading a data sheet for parameters, entering a few into those search
tools, and hitting a few good substitutes.
Boris
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:07 pm
On Jan 9, 4:32 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Quote:
"Lostgallifreyan" <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle_at_216.196.109.145...
Boris <boris...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?
Boris
I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I can
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a useful
answer.
My ECA book gives: Si-N, 35V, 0.5A, 50MHz and suggests; BC817, BCX19,
2SC3325 or 2SC3341.
news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle_at_216.196.109.145...
Boris <boris...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?
Boris
I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I can
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a useful
answer.
My ECA book gives: Si-N, 35V, 0.5A, 50MHz and suggests; BC817, BCX19,
2SC3325 or 2SC3341.
Thanks guys, without having any catalogue , I could have download half
of internet to get any result
Boris
Boris
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:44 pm
On Jan 9, 5:35 pm, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Quote:
Boris <boris...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:91edfe7f-a4da-40e4-b02b-
5324e321e...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
On Jan 9, 4:32 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle_at_216.196.109.145...
Boris <boris...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?
Boris
I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I ca
n
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a use
ful
answer.
My ECA book gives: Si-N, 35V, 0.5A, 50MHz and suggests; BC817, BCX19,
2SC3325 or 2SC3341.
Thanks guys, without having any catalogue , I could have download half
of internet to get any result
Boris
There is a neat shortcut. Someone told it to me after I'd been wading
through Google and all the parts brokers nonsense out there.http://www.findchips.com
The name sounds like any other inane parts broker with no actual inventory,
but go there, you'll see it isn't. Once you see a part offered by a couple of
sellers you can likely get a data sheet that is up to date, and further,
Digikey and Mouser have search tools good enough that you have a fair chance
of rading a data sheet for parameters, entering a few into those search
tools, and hitting a few good substitutes.
5324e321e...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
On Jan 9, 4:32 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle_at_216.196.109.145...
Boris <boris...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?
Boris
I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I ca
n
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a use
ful
answer.
My ECA book gives: Si-N, 35V, 0.5A, 50MHz and suggests; BC817, BCX19,
2SC3325 or 2SC3341.
Thanks guys, without having any catalogue , I could have download half
of internet to get any result
Boris
There is a neat shortcut.
Someone told it to me after I'd been wading
through Google and all the parts brokers nonsense out there.http://www.findchips.com
The name sounds like any other inane parts broker with no actual inventory,
but go there, you'll see it isn't. Once you see a part offered by a couple of
sellers you can likely get a data sheet that is up to date, and further,
Digikey and Mouser have search tools good enough that you have a fair chance
of rading a data sheet for parameters, entering a few into those search
tools, and hitting a few good substitutes.
Nice website, thanks
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Components - audio recording on IC -help wanted
