>
> 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
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 gschem's
tra
17 matches
Mail list logo
