---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id AF932E2023C; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:28:51 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <13.00CC7FC4@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; 1 Feb 2004 16:28:46 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 3749 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 16:28:39 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 4964; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 16:28:35 -0500 Received: from outbound05.telus.net [199.185.220.224] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with SMTP ; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:28:34 EST X-Warning: mitvma.mit.edu: Host outbound05.telus.net claimed to be priv-edtnes40.telusplanet.net Received: from DAR2.planet.eon.net ([198.53.251.69]) by priv-edtnes40.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP id <20040201212836.NRYB79.priv-edtnes40.telusplanet.net@DAR2.planet.eon.net> for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:28:36 -0700 X-Sender: dwayner@pop.telusplanet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 References: <6.0.1.1.2.20040131165906.03733e38@pop.telusplanet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040201140603.03889ec0@pop.telusplanet.net> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:25:11 -0700 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Dwayne Reid Subject: Re: [EE:] Shift registers with drivers To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856781 At 09:58 AM 2/1/2004, William Bross wrote: >The '6C595 ("C" variant) has the same pin-out as the 74hc595 and could be >dropped into the same socket *EXCEPT* that the data is inverted with >respect to the 74hc595: a serial 1 turns on the output FET, which is a low >side switch. > >dwayne > >Once again, please check your data sheets! These two chips don't have a >single pin assignment in common! Yes, the data is inverted BUT, you can't >interchange the chips! Yep - I just checked the data sheets again and you are right. This bugs me: I'm positive that I did come upon a power MOS near equivalent of the hc595 and now I'm going to have to dig in and find it and try to figure out why I got it confused with the '6c595. This was several years ago and I wound up not needing to use the part - the 74hc595 worked out just fine as a LED driver. But back to the original poster's question: the 2 parts that I have extensive experience with are the tpic6595 & tpic6b595. The tpic6595 has been reliable, the '6b595 caused us much grief. I've also used the tpic6a595 without any problems - but only in prototypes. I haven't used them in production. dwayne -- Dwayne Reid Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd Edmonton, AB, CANADA (780) 489-3199 voice (780) 487-6397 fax Celebrating 19 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2003) .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .- `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address. This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads .