Talk:4000-series integrated circuits

A little bit of POV?

It's not like CMOS and TTL were clashing armies - initially CMOS filled in places where TTL was not a good fit, and eventually a line of CMOS versions of many common TTL functions were made available. There are a couple of statements that I would point out as requiring rephrasing:

• " as a lower power and more versatile alternative" - lower power, yes, but more versatile? Where's the 4000-series equivalent of 74181, open-collector drivers, tri-state outputs, line drivers, (very very small) RAMs, PROMs, rate multipliers, etc.? True, TTL has goofy things like "expandable gates". And the 4000 series has the incomparable transmission-gate, which cannot be duplicated in a 7400 series part.
• "TTL circuits, ...often reqired much more careful interfacing, since the limited fanout (and fan-in) meant that loading of each output had to be carefully considered " - I suggest that CMOS also required consideration of fan-out, especially if you wanted to get any speed out of it. Any logic designers out there care to comment? I've never put more than 2-dozen chips on one board and that was for hobby And also - weren't 4000-series chips a *lot* more sensitive to ESD than TTL parts?

Saying that 4000 series was better than 7400 series is a bit like saying hammers are better than screwdrivers...they are different tools for different, though related, jobs. --Wtshymanski 16:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe this statement is false: " The buffered devices are less susceptible to output oscillation with slow-changing inputs so designers have to weigh up the pros and cons of using buffered or unbuffered parts according to the nature of the circuit in which the devices are being used." I think the bufferes devices are MORE susceptible to output oscillation because thats what the Ti and RCA ap note says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.36.41 (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

merge

Per a recent deletion discussion, I've merged a few 4000-series datasheet articles into this article. -- Mikeblas 11:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

4009

The 4009 hex high-to-low voltage (inverter) seems to be a hex not gate. See this link: http://www.samengstrom.com/nxl/9564/4009_hex_high-to-low_voltage_(inverting).en.html Should it be labeled under example common 4000 series chips as a not gate chip? Pi.1415926535 23:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Pi.1415926535

Electronic Roulette

About the Electronic Roulette, if someone can replace the schematic with a more good-looking and a more "organized" schematic. if not, i can. just tell me on my talk/user page. XU-engineer 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it disorganized, but the transistor is superfluous as the 555 is perfectly capable of driving the 4017's clock input directly. Also, while there is mention of a switch in the article, none is present in the schematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.12.235 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Figure change request

In the figures "0V" and "+9V" should be "VDD" and "VCC" (probably with subscripts for "DD" and "CC"), respectively. --Mortense (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)