Re: gEDA-user: SOT23

[Daniel J Wisehart <dw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Interestingly, the spec says the pins are numbered 1, 2, N/2, N/2+1, N, which 
I take to mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 6.  But frankly, I have never seen them labeled 
that way.

The parts we use are laid out the same as the National part you linked to.  
But what is in the PCB library is backwards to this.

Regards,
Daniel


On Wednesday 12 January 2005 10:05, Steve Meier wrote:
> Ok, pull out JEDEC Publication 95 Book three. Everybody with me and have
> their copy handy ;)
>
> The following part matches the JEDEC specification for MO-178 which is a
> version of SOT23-5
>
> http://cache.national.com/ds/LP/LP3985.pdf
>
> I prefer the JEDEC-95 specification for packages because.... components
> which reference them have the correct dimensions and pin numbering.
>
> The JEDEC standard JEP-95 may be viewed on line at www.jedec.org
> To reach the JEP-95 pdf files you need to register for free.
>
> I am curious to know which SOT23-5 packages differ from the MO-178
> standard. Can some one post an example.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve Meier
>
> On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 07:07, Daniel J Wisehart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 January 2005 05:39, Dan McMahill wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:14:40AM -0800, Matt Ettus wrote:
> > > > Is there a SOT23-5 footprint somewhere in PCB?  And does anyone have
> > > > a mapping between SOTxx and SCxx numbers?
> > >
> > > There are some SOT and SC footprints in ~geda.  Especially with these,
> > > you really really really (I can't stress it enough) want to verify
> > > the footprint before using them.  This is because I know of at least
> > > 2 different ways the pins on a SOT23-3 are numbered by different
> > > vendors.
> >
> > I agree with that.  We used the SOT23-5 footprint and it was wrong for
> > our part, so we had to glue the parts on upside down on our prototype.
> > :-(
> >
> > Regards,
> > Daniel