Seems the 520N is getting harder to get. My question,there are mods out there to upgrade the Cobra 29 LTD CLASSIC to the 520N. Can I use the 520 in this application?
Or simply "N"ew.The specification sheets do not distinguish between the 520N and the 520. I think they are the same part. The "N" could be a revision of the older style.
Thank You Exit13The IRF520N is a "more rugged" version of the IRF520, it has higher drain current spec than the IRF520. The IRF520 can be used as a substitute for the IRF520N in the Cobra 29 in this case.
~Cheers~
Well guys, nobody likes to be wrong, but part of being responsible is "owning up to it" when you make an error.For anyone considering the new "ERF2030+ by EKL/Palomar" as a replacement.
From my experience they require greater "turn-on voltage" or bias voltage than the IRF520, so while it is a pin for pin match.. you may not get acceptable results until you increase the bias voltage..
You are right about parts having different turn on voltages, even parts having the same numbers on them, which is why you should set mosfet bias by drain current or SA only. Completely ignore the part in service manuals that suggest setting mosfet bias by voltage, it don't work.Well guys, nobody likes to be wrong, but part of being responsible is "owning up to it" when you make an error.
My measurements have been off by an unknown margin of error, for a little while due to a failing 9 volt battery in my multi-meter...
So please disregard my comment about the bias voltage, I'll post more when I know more about this, and after I have an accurate meter in my hands.
My apologies, and best regards to all.
I sure wish Mike would start doing videos again. I got in to the hobby/industry after he had already shut the channel down.As the saying goes, you gotta f#c& around to find out. Mike found out, and then he let us know.
I have test equipment that is not calibrated over 50 Watts. I use a power attenuator and do the math. I guess I am con artist to some.I sure wish Mike would start doing videos again. I got in to the hobby/industry after he had already shut the channel down.
From what I can tell other jeolus techs put down him and and his "test equipment". You know the one that says "if you use an attenuator before your spectrum analizer you are a con artist".
There is nothing wrong with using a known-value attenuator to lower the power of a measured signal to within the power limitations (and calibrated range) of your test equipment. That guys knows it too, otherwise his would be blown up already. I don't think anyone here thinks you are a con artist lol.I guess I am con artist to some.
What I said, was to be taken as cynicism. Mike, is one of the few YouTube techs that was legit. The assclowns that have to be the best at everything and trash talk others, to make themselves appear to better at what they do, to people that don't know better is the problem.There is nothing wrong with using a known-value attenuator to lower the power of a measured signal to within the power limitations (and calibrated range) of your test equipment. That guys knows it too, otherwise his would be blown up already. I don't think anyone here thinks you are a con artist lol.
To "con" someone is to swindle them by means of conveying false confidence in ones self such that they believe you possess the skills to do what you say you will, when in fact you dont. Calling others con artists for doing it the right way to simply increase ones own business is the actual con, and anyone with half a brain can see it. Either he is crooked or he just wants people to blow up their SA's...
Sorry I misunderstood. I get it, I just avoid that stuff now.What I said, was to be taken as cynicism. Mike, is one of the few YouTube techs that was legit. The assclowns that have to be the best at everything and trash talk others, to make themselves appear to better at what they do, to people that don't know better is the problem.