Talk:TO-92

ESD is not related to case style.

This article states under heading "Disadvantges", "Many models are easily vulnerable to electrostatic discharge (ESD)."

ESD sensitivity is a function of the circuits inside the case, not the of the case style itself. That sentence should to be removed.

Simon --[Circumstances 1929 cia commisson timetravel]---ww2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.28.11 (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Michael --71.112.12.154 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Seam in packaging

The statement regarding the "seam" in the package is accurate. If you can squint hard enough to read the label printed on the front of the package, the seam is more than visible. 128.171.60.158 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a seam though - nothing is joined here. It's moulding flash. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

new nomenclature

"Today, the industry prefers the new TO-206 nomenclature for the TO-92 three-leaded enclosure."
A quick search on the net doesn't confirm this (no results that show to92=to206). However, I found some documents and datasheet that indicate that TO-206AA is actually TO-18 metal cylinder case. Eg. http://products.semelab-tt.com/pdf/misc/packages/mil_pack_drawing_to18.pdf Hoemaco (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

AIUI, TO-206 was an attempt (I don't know why) to round up many other compatible package styles under one number, then to indicate the variations by a sub code letter. The intention was that for many uses, the package is unimportant so long as the approximate lead spacing and their order is the same. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)