Just Google 'smd codebook' and there's a heap to try and sort through 'till you find the 'flavor' you like.
"smd codebook" - ah, the magic keyword. Lots of good stuff, thanks! This is what my original question hoped for.
I would _never_ have thought of trying that word.
Every time I think I've got a handle on this newfangled Internet thing, I come across another proof that no, I don't.
Will I _ever_ get good at searching? Maybe not. That's what happens when the greater portion of your life went by before the Net existed.
Just Google 'smd codebook' and there's a heap to try and sort through 'till you find the 'flavor' you like.
"smd codebook" - ah, the magic keyword. Lots of good stuff, thanks! This is what my original question hoped for.
I would _never_ have thought of trying that word.
Every time I think I've got a handle on this newfangled Internet thing, I come across another proof that no, I don't.
Will I _ever_ get good at searching? Maybe not. That's what happens when the greater portion of your life went by before the Net existed.
That was 'me' 20+ yrs ago but when I started to teach the kids how to use the 'net it was interesting to see what they thought would be good keywords to use. We all think a little differently (thank heavens) and now Google is much better than in early days however you can still get too hung up on a particular search style whereas sometimes the KISS principle works best.
The irony with SMD codes... (quote from The SMD Codebook)
"SMD devices are, by their very nature, too small to carry conventional semiconductor type numbers. Instead, a somewhat arbitrary coding system has grown up, where the device package carries a simple two-or three-character ID code."
When in fact, seeing the precision already present with laser-etched numbers on the parts, they could easily write actual part numbers with at least 5 or 6 symbols.
We already use magnifying devices to look at SMD parts anyway; it doesn't matter if the numbers are too small to read by eye.
I think there's probably two factors involved in the continued use of cryptic, ambiguous codes.
1. Habit. Started using codes when numbers could only be printed on. Kept using them when laser marking rendered size irrelevant.
2. Obfuscation. Codes are something of an impediment to reverse engineering.
Or maybe the time and power needed to laser-mark is a profit-margin factor?
On the other hand when SMD code books and Google don't produce results .....and one's getting desperate I've chucked the SMD marking into an Aliexpress search only to be rewarded with dozens of results and all of them correct !
Last one was a 7 digit display driver SOIC16 GC7137A.....couldn't find it anywhere else !
#1 Laser etching tinier numbers would add to the cost of the parts, in an already competitive market.
#2 Devices are made to be disposable now. Nobody is meant to read those numbers.
Not for any better reason than my own curiosity*, I'[ve recently been given a USB-Lightning cable for charging i Devices (I have the burden of having to deal with them at work) and it's obviously a rip off one, but, it passes diagnostics as a genuine Apple cable, so, I popped the end open and found a pair of SOT-23 devices, one six pin, one three pin and I'm very curious as to what they are.
SOT-23 6 pin is marked A8213 and the 3 pin is marked A19T
* Is there any better reason for doing things than curiosity?
I've chucked the SMD marking into an Aliexpress search only to be rewarded with dozens of results and all of them correct !
Yes, but there is usually no information about the part. Only the same number you managed to read off the part.
They only want you to buy it, not look it up elsewhere.
Mhmm, I will admit to knowing that one already, the 6 pin one was the main interest, maybe I need to pop the other end of the cable open and look for more parts in there as I was under the impression that Apple cables were 'smart'?
Mhmm, I will admit to knowing that one already
Well thanks for sending us on a chase for you.
I've chucked the SMD marking into an Aliexpress search only to be rewarded with dozens of results and all of them correct !
Yes, but there is usually no information about the part. Only the same number you managed to read off the part.
They only want you to buy it, not look it up elsewhere.
Yes that has been my experience too but not always.
Often, when on a wild goose chase we need glean tiny tidbits of info from wherever we can find them.
SMD codes are sometimes referred to the actual device # from which we can then find the datasheet and subsequently a source or equivalent part.
Members like gamalot have an advantage as they are capable and confident with TaoBao and that can open more doors of parts accessibility.
I've found a few dozen of these surplus components some years ago. Normally I only buy stuff I can identify but I must have thought these were too cute.
I can't say if the marking is "Oh"4F or "Zero"4F.
Any help? Thanks.
BINGO!
Would you explain how you were led to it?
Thanks much.
Step 1: Identify chip package
Step 2: Query search engine for chip package + surface marking
Step 3: Identify relevant results
Step 4: Rank results
Step 5: Select most probable result
duh
I had thought it was a SOT-223. Thanks again.
Yes, the gazillion of different footprints can be quite a challenge
Mhmm, I will admit to knowing that one already
Well thanks for sending us on a chase for you.
Yeah, cos it took you so long to do but please feel free to ignore me in future, I'll be sure to ignore you.
Thank you. I'm flattered.
They are probably identical but just want to be sure
Y U NO CHECK manufacturer info?
Jotrin has these listed as a lot of 800
https://www.jotrin.com/product/parts/692263ALink to datasheet is no avail @STM though.
The e3 - emulated eeprom is emulated in onboard flash memory afaik. My guess would be an 8-bit MCU, but who knows
Maybe write to STM support for a datasheet?
Mhmm, I will admit to knowing that one already, the 6 pin one was the main interest, maybe I need to pop the other end of the cable open and look for more parts in there as I was under the impression that Apple cables were 'smart'?
There should be digital logic for it to recognize it. The "mosfet" might be a mislabeled regulator (intentionally?) and the other chip holds the program. If theres no coil for converting a fet wouldn't make much sense.
I believe the (e3) marking is related to RoHS. ST are well known for making custom parts with unobtainium datasheets, this one is no exception.