Talk:1N400x rectifier diode

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Electronics Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I propose we merge 1N540X to here, since these 3A and 1A diodes are sometimes treated together, and the 540X series are not likely to be independently notable. I merged some table info already and cited a source that has both together in one table. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the AfD is close, I suggest we move it 1N4001 series diodes or 1N4000 and 1N5400 series diodes or some such, with redirects from all the individual part numbers. Any other suggestions or comments? Dicklyon (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"And" in an article title is not a sign of a strongly-conceived, focussed article. Something a little more inclusive might be Silicon diodes where we could talk about their general properties, history, and limitations, and then give a table of the properties of our favorite parts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, but (AIUI) there is some commonality between the 1N400x and the 1N540x series, one being a very similar scaled-up version, using the same technology and having the same development history. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or even if they're not the same technology or development history, if they're treated together in sources due to being a logical family, we can treat them here that way. What we call it is not such a big deal. Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the worst things we could do (and have already done with 2N7000). Just because a few externally measurable ratings look similar, that's no reason to merge. What could such an article usefully say about the components? In that case it really would have degenerated to being merely a parts list. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they're treated together in sources, is that not a good reason to treat them together here? Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, only if they're treated that way in good sources, that are discussing the items in the same way that we are. There are a great many transistors around, with a lot of overlap. So second-source fabs (like Vishay) often make one part that meets the specs for several and sells those same dice (sometimes in different mounts) as being compatible with all of those parts. It's an error on our part to write about "first transistor using annular epitaxy (2N2222)" and back this up with sources that are describing a more modern compatible replacement that doesn't use the same geometry. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be thrilled to read something about the development history and similarities of these devices - that would make something more like an article and less like the NTE substitution guide. But are there any sources? --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Why do you think it has a notable development history? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. It's just another part. If there's nothing notable about it, why is it here? Evena garge band needs more sources to get listed. The point about slow speed is not peculiar to *this* diode, and a well-thought-out article on silicon diodes would explain the significance of "speed" and storage time, and explain in an integrated way why different diode types are developed for different purposes. Instead we have disjointed factoids from data sheets. Not very encyclopdiac, I think. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So write that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Och, aye. But first let's kill off all the part numbers. Any suggestions for your favorite history of the semiconductor industry? --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to kill them; just redirect them to someplace better when it exists and includes all their content. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the AfD mess has settled down and the merge is done, and all the 1N5400 series stuff redirects here, any objection to going ahead with this move proposal? Other specific new name suggestions before I give it a try at 1N4000 and 1N5400 series diodes? Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with "and" in the title make me uncomfortable; what are we really writing about when we have "and" ? Sheep and goats might really be about Farm animals or Quadrupeds but it's no longer just about "sheep" or "goats". What does our hypothetical bright 12-year-old reader need to know about two common JEDEC registered silicon diodes, which are chiefly remarkable for having a Wikipedia article about them? Could we just redirect to Diode or Rectifier and give a table of our favorite part numbers there? Could we explain *why* these are used at 60 Hz or 400 Hz and why they won't make a good substitute for a Cat's whisker detector or a 1N34 ? Or even a 1N4148? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've had Sheep and goats for years, it's called Caprinae. It's a taxonomically meaningful grouping, just as the 1N400X & 1N540X likely are too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That redirects to Goat-antelope (surprise!). I don't see "and" in that title, though a hyphen is a little wishy-washy. Good luck finding out from that article something like, oh, say, is it bigger than I can lift? And I'm not thrilled that manufactured artifacts have a taxonomy like animal species. Are we inventing that taxonomy here, or is there some family tree out there that explains the evolution? What are we saying about little plastic diodes? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is whether there's really much commonality between the 1N400X and 1N540X series. Who designed them? Did they originate together, as a high & low current range intended for sale & use together? If so, the merge makes sense. After all, that's our justification for 1N400X rather than 1N4001...7. Those were developed as a range, consistent in everything except their breakdown, which you chose to meet the design need. OTOH, if they were developed as competitors by two different fabricators (maybe one thought the market need 3A diodes, the other thought 1A would see enough use) it would be less appropriate to handle them together. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good to read about. The trouble is, that the sources to explain this are some yellowing 40+-year-old photocopies languishing in a file box of whoever inherited Fairchild's or Westinghouse's or Motorola's files of the time. Not quite as vanished as the Library of Alexandria, but not accessible on any Wiki-reasonable level of effort. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we have to go on is how they're covered in sources. Often, they're covered together, as an extended family ([1], [2], [3]). So far, I don't think you guys have offered an alternative suggestion, have you? A suggestion of redirect to diode is just a revisit of a failed AfD, so I don't see that as constructive. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the problem. If we rename this to "1N400X and 1N540X", besides being an impossible search term, what happens when someone wants to add the 1N610X (hypothetical part number series) with a 7 1/2 amp rating? If this were Wikiparts, no problem. I suppose you can keep adding "and" clauses every time you need to talk about another part number, but that's not really a sound basis for an article topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we start a new Wiki called Wikiparts and hire Wtshymanski to run it. (big smile) Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The search term could be "1N400" or "1N540" - either will match a title of "1N400X and 1N540X". As for the 1N610, then there's no such diode. If one was to be created in the future, that would then be a new device and so wouldn't have any place in the previous history. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no alternative suggestions, I went ahead and did the move. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad the JEDEC Web site isn't a tiny bit more open about their historical records; if one could access the registration application for a JEDEC number, one would obtain not only the date that the part was first thought ready for market, but also who developed it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: I purchased the original document "Announcement of Electron Device Type Registration, Release No. 4190" from a publisher, and added the historical information to the article. It's a common problem of many industrial alliances, most publications are not available to the general public and/or paywalled. I, too, want to find out when did the diode come to existence.

Not done for now: Unfortunately the source remains paywalled, if we want to obtain more records of other devices, the cost will add up to hundreds of dollars, worse, terms and conditions said all forms of reproduction are prohibited, so the primary source remains inaccessible to most readers. My hope is that the copyright has expired (pre-1964, without renewal), if it's the case, anyone is free to repost them to Wikimedia Common. Nevertheless, I'm not sure how these "Type Registration Release"(s) were originally published - as standalone notices, or as a section in a large journal/newsletter. If it's the latter case, the original publication needs to be identified to determine its copyright status. If anyone knows how the JEDEC registration process worked back in the 1960's tube era, help is appreciated. Meanwhile, I'll try mailing to the owner of two vacuum tube websites to see if they know something about the JEDEC releases. If it fails, I will try digging into the U.S. Copyright Office records to find everything ever registered by EIA and JEDEC, if I cannot find anything relevant, I think it's safe to say the copyright has expired. - Bieraaa (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 1N4000 is a 10 watt voltage regulator diode - not related to the parts discussed in this article. Or at least I think so, but I've been wrong before. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, according to my books, too. Nonetheless, the series is often called the 1N4000 series, though it starts at 1N4001. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment redacted. We'll all be reduced to pointing and grunting. It would be nice to read about what a JEDEC number actually means, because the folks writing TAB books and "For dummies" either don't have a clue or else don't get paid to write about it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It think it's more an issue of how people simplify number series in English than anything about JEDEC. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a while Electricity meter was threatening to include every kind of electrical indicating instrument. It would have been like a bitten toddler saying it was a "bad kitty", and we'd have no idea what he's talking about. Wikipedia should reflect good informed useage of terms and not add to the fog of confusion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity meter (plural), Electrical generator and Wind-hydro station were all the work of a sock of a prolific disruptive editor and socketeer, long since banned. This came to light after similar disruption with the rail gauge categories in recent days.

It's hard enough doing this stuff without all the trollage 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What's worse, with recent events, trolling on Wikipedia is now on the rise. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you ordered 100,000 1N4007 diodes and got that funny-looking surface mount part instead, you'd be on the blower with your purchasing department advising them not to use Wikipedia as a substitution guide. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this and restored the image. My data book will sell me an M7, if I order an 1N4001 and specify it as SMD. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. You ask for a part number, then say it's got to be something else other than that part number. Why use the part number at all? What you do get if you order a Ferrari and specify it as SMD? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you order 100K parts without comparing datasheets and sampling/testing parts, then it's your own fault. Newer packages of historically older parts don't warrant a unique wikipedia article just for themselves, instead they are listed in the article of the common family name. See 2N3904 transistor example in different packages. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for SMD Ferraris. Newer packages of historically older parts warrant a unique Wikipedia article exactly as much as the older parts. If it's a different package, it gets a different JEDEC number - that's the sole point of the JEDEC numbers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming that every article must be split into separate articles for every package type as well? Madness! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If one part number needs an article, they all need an article. But of course no part number needs an article. At least we don't have "and" in the article title any more. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a unique article for "miniUSB" or "microUSB" or "USB 1.1", instead they exist inside the large "USB" article. On Wikipedia, short stub articles are continuously being merged into large related articles, which is why there won't be a unique article for each package type of a part. I didn't create the rules. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why isn't 1N914 in this article, too? It's a different part number, but still a silicon diode. And it's about as interchangeable with an 1N4007 as that random SMD part is. What is the purpose of this article, maybe the name has me confused? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a whole different diode. And you're old enough to know that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So current rating trumps wire leads? Interesting. Is there some place I can read about which parts are the same and which parts are different, as evidently I have no clue? --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have a large number of silicon rectifier diodes in here now, why not rename the article Silicon rectifier diode and give a little general overview of what makes a good s.r.d. before getting into the parts lists? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why "(or 1N4001 or 1N4000)"? If it is only 1N4001 and 1N4000, why not state that instead of 1N400x? Conversely, if there is a 1N4002, why not leave "(or 1N4001 or 1N4000)" out? --Mortense (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's nonsense. We have to include the whole 1N4001 to 1N4007 family, but a 1N4000 is a whole different thing. Delete it. "1N4000 series" is in common use today, but it's wrong and we shouldn't perpetuate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about 1N4000, because that number isn't a member of the family, whereas 1N5400 is a member of the 3 Amp family. This article contains more than just the 1N4001 to 1N4007, because it's silly to have a numerous diode articles for many different footprints and amp ranges. At some point in the past, I renamed these 3 articles to make the names have a similar format. I don't have an issue with renaming articles, as long as the renaming considers what to do with the 1N58xx schottky article. As for the intro, I feel the 1N4000 should be moved to another sentence or paragraph (and expand on it), because that number doesn't exist. I would prefer 1N4001 to 1N4007 to be in the parens at the beginning. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered diode article titles: • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 1N400x general-purpose diodes
• 1N58xx Schottky diodes
• 1N4148 signal diode

Alternatives: • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "1N4001-1N4007 general-purpose diodes" or "1N4001 general-purpose diode family" or "1N4001 diode family" or ???
• "1N5817-1N5825 schottky diodes" or "1N5817 schottky diode family" or "1N5817 diode family" or ???

Numbered transistor article titles: • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 2N2222, 2N2907, 2N3904, 2N3906, 2N3055, BC108 family, BC548, KT315

I'd be happy to merge (with redirects) the complementary pairs. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really appropriate to decribe these as second sourced, a term which generally refers to licensed copies of a proprietary device or (more loosely) unlicensed third party functional copies. Here the part number comes from the JEDEC specification summarising the behavour - JEDEC themselves never produced a diode of the type. Manufacturers with a 1N4004 or whatever are following that specification, they are not "soecond sourcing" because there is no "primary" source. 3142 (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I removed it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that "these are fairly low-speed rectifier diodes, being inefficient for square waves of more than 15 kHz", of course anyone know that they are not designed for switching, but it needs to be supported by reliable sources. The source listed here is Wireless World volume 82, 1988. But I was unable to find information about these diodes in the Wireless World release. Could anyone reconfirm it and locate the precise location of the citation? The website Amercian Radio History has all the Wireless World releases. - Bieraaa (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A misleading name; there's no such thing. If I take a 1N4007 and try to detect the radar signals off my car, it fails miserably. I doubt it would replace the cat's whisker in my crystal set, let alone serve as a video detector, voltage regulator, or high-speed logic component. Needs a better title. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're certainly not "all purpose". But the mfg's datasheets call them "general purpose", which in my experience means typical power and audio applications. Dicklyon (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And Wikipedia articles are intended for the use of people who already know this, but for some reason need to look up some generalities that they've forgotten about this vital part. I have here on the table next to me the 1973 Texas Instruments transistor and diode data book; the 1N4001 through 1N4007 data sheet ( the only printed manufactuer's data sheets I still have for this device number) calls them "silicon rectifiers" and no-where calls them "general purpose". This TI data sheet gives no nformatoin such as switchign time or junction capacitance, adn the only frequency it mentions is half-cycles of 60 Hz. But this is Wikipedia, after all, where the elephant population is multiplying and the mighty Winnipeg River flows through downtown Winnipeg to the sea. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some say "general purpose rectifiers" which might be better. Or put a few words into the article to say what they're called, but not in WP's voice. Dicklyon (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

per your comment "no-where calls them "general purpose"... That is incorrect, because reference 3 in this wiki article says "general purpose", so does the vishay webpage too, also Futurlec and other examples on the internet too. I'm not claiming it's the best or only way to describe these diodes, but it is one of the many variations that is being used. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, 1N400x is a family, thus the article should be plural, such as "diodes" instead of "diode". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to singular recently, as "a 1N400x diode" makes plenty of sense. The plural is simply not necessary here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically referring to the TI data sheet I had in hand. I don't know why other data sheets call these "general purpose" diodes since they are not characterized for switching time or junction capacitance and aren't even useful for switch-mode power supplies. I wonder if you could use one as a varactor? --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "1N400X" diode - can't find it anywhere. Worse and worse. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there are a multiplicity of them? Better and better... Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 1N400x diode family would be a better title? Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon rectifier diode could be an encyclopedia article title. "1N mumblety mumble randomly assigned digits" is a header for a parts list. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]