From: Mike Poulton
Subject: Re: Reducing contact resistance for low volt use?
Date: 13 Dec 2002 10:26:19 GMT
Organization: MTP Technologies
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DF7BEB1.703937F@juno.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On 12 Dec 2002, firstname.lastname@example.org (John Fields) said:
> On 12 Dec 2002 21:36:13 GMT, Mike Poulton
>>Note 6: Calculated continuous current... for recommended
>>current-handling of the package, refer to design tip # 93-4.
>>Ain't no way a TO-220 package will handle 160A. They are practically
>>limited to about 30A most of the time, and that is pushing it for most
> Yup, you're right. Thanks.
> What _was_ I thinking?
You were thinking the manufacturer was being honest and straightforward in
their device specifications! I blew quite a few mosfets before I learned
that the "spec sheets" are so named because they are "wildly speculative",
not "specifications". The current and power dissipation ratings are rough
indicators of what the device can do compared to other devices from the
same manufacturer, but not really useful values for design calculations.
Would it hurt them so much to include real-world values that don't require
liquid nitrogen cooling to achieve? AAARRRGGH! This is one of my pet
Live free or die! http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
Unless the government has a really excellent reason, anyone should be
allowed to possess, own, purchase, store, use, publish, say, or do
anything that does not cause demonstrable harm to another person without
that person's consent. "To fight terrorism" in the vague sense is not
even close to sufficient reason.