Hello there,
First, I bought some Microchip TC7107I/PT chips. Now I am looking on the microchip website at the TC7107/A datasheet. Unfortunatly, it doesn't mention anything about the package that I bought it in. How can I then know which pin is which?
http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Devices.aspx?dDocName=en010503Second, looking at the datasheet, there is a typical application circuit example. It depicts an IC with pins called Vref + and Vref -. The MQFP-44 package doesn't have these pins at all. I bet this is typical of datasheets. But it is frustrating to a beginner like me. Now I need to figure out where the pins are on the TQFP-44, which is what I bought, but how do I go about that?
Third, the pin function descriptions don't apply to any 44pin packages at all. This is confusing. Frustration sets in.M
I/PT stands for:
I -> -25°C to +85°C
P -> PDIP
T -> Tray
VREF- PIN 35
VREF+ PIN 36
TQFP pinout is usually the same as MQFP. Thus, the information on the page 2 should be applicable.
REF LO/Hi on the MQFP correspond to the usual Vref -/+ pins.
Cheers,
Dan
Thanks guys. Is this kind of documentation normal?To me it is absolutely horrible.
According to wikipedia, a Plastic Dual in-line package is a through-hole component. I got TQFP. The chip in my hand is surface mount. What is going on?
The datasheet says nothing about any 44pin packages at all. This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I used to like microchip. But this sucks.
Enough moaning. Is there a tutorial where I can learn about all the irrational ways manufacturers make their documentation. I find that almost every time I look at a datasheet I get stuck. Help! Thanks.M
Thanks.
According to wikipedia, a Plastic Dual in-line package is a through-hole component. I got TQFP. The chip in my hand is surface mount. What is going on?
The datasheet says nothing about any 44pin packages at all. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.M
Eh?
This document clearly indicates the MQFP package:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/21455d.pdfEdit:
As stated on the indicated page, your package is a:
TC7107IPT713 - a 44 pin TQFP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_Quad_Flat_PackFrom a pinout perspective, the TQFP should be identical to a MQFP.
Thanks.
According to wikipedia, a Plastic Dual in-line package is a through-hole component. I got TQFP. The chip in my hand is surface mount. What is going on?
The datasheet says nothing about any 44pin packages at all. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.M
Eh?
This document clearly indicates the MQFP package:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/21455d.pdf
Yes I stand corrected. You are right. The MQFP and PLCC are pictured once, but throughout the rest of the datasheet, they are not mentioned. The pin fuctions, examples are all for the 40 pin package. The names of the pins change from one package to the next.M
First of all, thanks for trying to help me!
I/PT stands for:
I -> -25°C to +85°C
P -> PDIP
T -> Tray
VREF- PIN 35
VREF+ PIN 36
As far as I can tell, this information is contradicting what Dan is saying:
TQFP pinout is usually the same as MQFP. Thus, the information on the page 2 should be applicable.
REF LO/Hi on the MQFP correspond to the usual Vref -/+ pins.
What is correct? This Microchip datasheet is a piece of shit.M
What reference is exactly marked in you IC?
If you have this TC7107IPT713, it is TQFP.
The reference is rather estrange comparing with other Microchip products. My fault, I thought that it was an I/P, general description for Microchip PDIP packages.
Says:
Microchip
TC7107IPT
0952SRE
I struggle to see how, with Microchip can even bother spelling correctly, if t hey cannot stretch their correctness to annotating that the MQFP pinout is the same as the TQFP. It sucks.
Thanks Dan and EdoNork for helping me.M
I struggle to see how, with Microchip can even bother spelling correctly, if t hey cannot stretch their correctness to annotating that the MQFP pinout is the same as the TQFP.
They do. See here, where full details are found:
http://www.microchip.com/stellent/groups/techpub_sg/documents/packagingspec/en012702.pdfYou know, you would be a lot less stressed out if you would stop trying to unload the blame for your problems onto Microchip. You need to calm down and think that maybe, if you don't understand something, the problem lies with your inexperience and lack of knowledge rather than with the material you are trying to understand?
Any time you have a problem in life, your first thought should be, "What am I doing wrong?", not "Why is someone else wrong?"
I struggle to see how, with Microchip can even bother spelling correctly, if t hey cannot stretch their correctness to annotating that the MQFP pinout is the same as the TQFP.
They do. See here, where full details are found: http://www.microchip.com/stellent/groups/techpub_sg/documents/packagingspec/en012702.pdf
You know, you would be a lot less stressed out if you would stop trying to unload the blame for your problems onto Microchip. You need to calm down and think that maybe, if you don't understand something, the problem lies with your inexperience and lack of knowledge rather than with the material you are trying to understand?
Any time you have a problem in life, your first thought should be, "What am I doing wrong?", not "Why is someone else wrong?"
I am sorry if you were offended by my unloading of my frustration. I
really am.
I frankly thought that everyone would agree with me that it is unnecessary to alternate between annotations in datasheets. I failed to see how it is useful to deviate from consistent semantics. People without background in engineering in my line of work (which is to make illustrations) would regard this datasheet as the work of an amateur. If I made a datasheet, I would stick to Vref+ and Vref-, rathering than alternating between this and RefLo and RefHi plus a bunch of other things.
Because I am so inexperienced, I fail to understand why this marvelous Microchip datasheet doesn't separate between Cref+ and Cref- on the pinout of the QFP when it separates between them elsewhere. The annotation used is on the QFP is Cref and Cref. Perhaps the polarity is without significance?
What do you think?
Because I am so inexperienced, I fail to understand why this marvelous Microchip datasheet doesn't separate between Cref+ and Cref- on the pinout of the QFP when it separates between them elsewhere. The annotation used is on the QFP is Cref and Cref. Perhaps the polarity is without significance?
What do you think?
I think Section 2 of the data sheet is the place to look when you want information about pin functions, not the pin diagram.
CREF- See Pin 34 (CREF+)
CREF+ A 0.1 ?F capacitor is used in most applications. If a large Common mode voltage exists (for example, the VIN- pin is not at analog common), and a 200 mV scale is used, a 1 ?F capacitor is recommended and will hold the rollover error to 0.5 count.
In most cases, a non-polarized cap will be used so it doesn't matter.
I am sorry if you were offended by my unloading of my frustration. I really am.
I frankly thought that everyone would agree with me that it is unnecessary to alternate between annotations in datasheets. I failed to see how it is useful to deviate from consistent semantics. People without background in engineering in my line of work (which is to make illustrations) would regard this datasheet as the work of an amateur. If I made a datasheet, I would stick to Vref+ and Vref-, rathering than alternating between this and RefLo and RefHi plus a bunch of other things.
Because I am so inexperienced, I fail to understand why this marvelous Microchip datasheet doesn't separate between Cref+ and Cref- on the pinout of the QFP when it separates between them elsewhere. The annotation used is on the QFP is Cref and Cref. Perhaps the polarity is without significance?
What do you think?
Yes there are some different notations in use there, and indeed the odd typographical error. True enough that's not perfect and they could do better. But those datasheets are intended for engineers and the most important aspect is the underlying meaning and function of the pins. I do not think an engineer would have trouble understanding that datasheet.
Yes there are some different notations in use there, and indeed the odd typographical error. True enough that's not perfect and they could do better. But those datasheets are intended for engineers and the most important aspect is the underlying meaning and function of the pins. I do not think an engineer would have trouble understanding that datasheet.
Great. That's what I was thinking.M
Aren't you guys from the same country?
Cheers,
Dan
Spain.
Lo siento por la confusión!
Your Erik the Red avatar made me think about Norway.
Cheers,
Dan
Mistakes and oversights in data sheets are not uncommon, report it to them and they can fix it or clarify in a revision.
Dave.
