>
> Yes, I think there is supposed to be a TO-92A, TO-92B, and TO-92C (the
> different orders) but nobody paid enough attention, and I'm not sure if this
> is standard, or merely convention. see attached gif that was stolen from
> http://www.kss.sd23.bc.ca/chalmers/robotics10/Labs/ComparePNPNPN/h
On Sat, 21 May 2011 23:23:29 +0200
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> Vanessa Ezekowitz wrote:
>
> > You mean, like THIS? (see attachment)
>
> Ok, this is _all_ permutations of certain three letter combos. May be
> a little bit over the top for general distribution. Many combinations
> do not correspond
> In the context of packages, the package might indicate, which slot
> to use. As with all attributes, the user could override per
> instance.
I had a similar thought, but wanted to separate slotting from mapping.
Choosing a specific transistor (Fairchild 2N3904 TO92, for example)
triggered a map
Vanessa Ezekowitz wrote:
> You mean, like THIS? (see attachment)
Ok, this is _all_ permutations of certain three letter combos. May be
a little bit over the top for general distribution. Many combinations
do not correspond to any component in the real world. Having them in
the lib just invites e
On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:42:48 +0200
Wojciech Kazubski wrote:
> > Vanessa Ezekowitz
> > [... posted an equivalent replacement footprint ...]
>
> TO-92 transistors use at least four pinouts. The footprint name shall
> indicate this if it has E, B, C instead of pin numbers. I think that plain
> TO
> The discussion about "reinventing the wheel" reminded me:
>
> The TO92 footprint included with PCB does not work with the schematic
> importer therein. Try to reference it and the importer complains about
> missing pins, because it uses numbered pins instead of the B-C-E lettering
> used in
Cullen,
I suspect the TO-92A/B/C notation comes from some layout package, and
that is why other packages use other terminology. It is not in the
original TO-92 spec, which is available free (registration required)
from JEDEC at http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/focus/register
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Colin D Bennett <[1]co...@gibibit.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:02:58 -0400
Vanessa Ezekowitz <[2]vanessaezekow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The discussion about "reinventing the wheel" reminded me:
>
> The TO92 footprint included with PCB does
DJ Delorie wrote:
> what we'd need is a range
> of TO92 packages with all the permutations of EBC and SGD, like
> TO92_EBC.fp, TO92_ECB.fp, TO92_SDG.fp,
This is, what I ended up with, after I had my first TO92 transistor
disaster. In my not so private library on gedasymbols.org there are
both:
> Perhaps, and as DJ says the actual mapping varies from one
> transistor type to another. However, this particular footprint
> simply doesn't work for any Gschem->PCB use case, hence my
> replacement.
I think, if we were to accept such a change, what we'd need is a range
of TO92 packages with a
On Fri, 20 May 2011 08:31:46 +0200
Stephan Boettcher wrote:
>
> Vanessa Ezekowitz writes:
>
> > The TO92 footprint included with PCB does not work with the schematic
> > importer therein. Try to reference it and the importer complains
> > about missing pins, because it uses numbered pins inst
DJ Delorie writes:
>> The TO92 package has well define pin numbers. The mapping from
>> transistor pins to footprint pins should happen in the schematic.
>
> Worse, the mapping from EBC to 123 is *different* for different
> transistors using the TO-92 case.
>
> Compare 2N3904 - E-B-C
>
> The TO92 package has well define pin numbers. The mapping from
> transistor pins to footprint pins should happen in the schematic.
Worse, the mapping from EBC to 123 is *different* for different
transistors using the TO-92 case.
Compare 2N3904 - E-B-C
2SC2631 - E-C-B
__
Vanessa Ezekowitz writes:
> The TO92 footprint included with PCB does not work with the schematic
> importer therein. Try to reference it and the importer complains
> about missing pins, because it uses numbered pins instead of the B-C-E
> lettering used in gschem's transistor symbols.
The T
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:25:50 -0700
Colin D Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:02:58 -0400
> Vanessa Ezekowitz wrote:
>
> > The discussion about "reinventing the wheel" reminded me:
> >
> > The TO92 footprint included with PCB does not work with the schematic
> > importer therein. Try to
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:02:58 -0400
Vanessa Ezekowitz wrote:
> The discussion about "reinventing the wheel" reminded me:
>
> The TO92 footprint included with PCB does not work with the schematic
> importer therein. Try to reference it and the importer complains
> about missing pins, because it u
16 matches
Mail list logo
