Substitute for MC14049 inverting hex buffer

[Jaseelmj]

Hi guys
I want to know a good substitute for the inverting hex buffer mc14049 ..
Is CD4049 is an good substitute for the above
I am making a dc to dc converter circuit for project purpose.plz help me with this ASAP.
Thanks

 

[(*steve*)]

Yep, they have the same part number and are probably very similar parts.

It's always with checking out the datasheet just in case the one you're substituting doesn't have (say) a higher maximum supply voltage that may be important in the circuit you're making

 

[Jaseelmj]

Yep, they have the same part number and are probably very similar parts.

It's always with checking out the datasheet just in case the one you're substituting doesn't have (say) a higher maximum supply voltage that may be important in the circuit you're making

Thanks buddy.was really waiting for the reply.
Voltage ratings are good.thanks

 

[AnalogKid]

Exact same part. The CD part was first introduced by RCA when they developed CMOS for the market. When Motorola got into CMOS, they started all of their parts with MC - Motorola CMOS.

Note that that is an old, early part, and is "unbuffered". Early CMOS parts were *extremely* sensitive to static electricity damage. 2nd gen parts usually have a B after the part number, indicating a buffered chip with input ESD protection and a buffered output stage that can handle more current and brief short circuits. The 4049 was kept unbuffered because many designs depended on that "feature", and did not work with the newer parts. Some people mark the 4049 as 4049U or 4049UB for this reason. Same with the 4069. Consider the 40106 as a more robust alternative.

ak

 

[Jaseelmj]

Exact same part. The CD part was first introduced by RCA when they developed CMOS for the market. When Motorola got into CMOS, they started all of their parts with MC - Motorola CMOS.

Note that that is an old, early part, and is "unbuffered". Early CMOS parts were *extremely* sensitive to static electricity damage. 2nd gen parts usually have a B after the part number, indicating a buffered chip with input ESD protection and a buffered output stage that can handle more current and brief short circuits. The 4049 was kept unbuffered because many designs depended on that "feature", and did not work with the newer parts. Some people mark the 4049 as 4049U or 4049UB for this reason. Same with the 4069. Consider the 40106 as a more robust alternative.

ak

Thanks mahn for the help.

 

[Alec_t]

You say you are making a DC to DC converter. Are you aware that CMOS circuits have very limited current source/sink capability, so will need an output buffer stage to drive any significant load?

 

[Jaseelmj]

You say you are making a DC to DC converter. Are you aware that CMOS circuits have very limited current source/sink capability, so will need an output buffer stage to drive any significant load?

Actually i didnt get u..i am a kind of starter in circuits..can u help me

 

[Alec_t]

What output voltage and current do you want from the converter?
Are you building the converter as a learning exercise or simply because you need one (it may be cheaper/quicker to buy a ready-made one)?

 

[Jaseelmj]

What output voltage and current do you want from the converter?
Are you building the converter as a learning exercise or simply because you need one (it may be cheaper/quicker to buy a ready-made one)?

Its a 12 to 40 v converter..this is for my project purpose

 

[Alec_t]

I don't recommend that converter circuit. Even though 4 logic gates are parallelled to drive each pair of FET gates, they can provide only limited drive current for charging the gate capacitances. The likelihood is that the (obsolete) FETS will switch on/off relatively slowly, causing the FETS to be only partially switched on for extended periods and thus dissipating considerable power as heat.

 

[TedA]

I imagine that the circuit will work using the 4049 as a gate driver. Of course, designing today from scratch, we would use something else. There are now parts designed for the job. The LM3524 is getting a bit long in tooth, as well. But this design looks as if it has a fair chance of working.

However, the whole thing is pretty complex, and may be difficult to get working. I don't think I would want to try to debug it without an oscilloscope. And what is going to be used for the transformer and chokes?

Ted