CK727 PNP Si drift transistor - CK766 PNP Ge transistor rati

L

legg

Guest
The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

http://www.ck722museum.com/page7.html

- shows ratings for the part of

5nA (collector current) and
30nW(collector power dissipation).

Please note the units used.

The only other source for data on this part is from the D.A.T.A.
catalog series, that gives collector dissipation of the CK722 as 4mW.

The beta test for this part involves a static collector bias of 10V
and 4mA to establish minimum hfe of 30. This would require the part to
dissipate 40mW, at least for the duration of the test, unless a curve
tracer was used. Even then, this exceeds the paper collector current
rating by some orders of magnitude.

Similar part numbers in similar packages are either rated at

40 to 100mW,

or 2 to 4mW.

Is it possible that the latter group suffer from practitioners
dithering around the same possible typo, made by the same typist, at
around the same time? The typo seems only to affect recorded ratings
for part numbers

CK721 -4mW
CK722 -4mW
CK725 -4mW
CK727 -4mW
CK790 -2mW
CK791 -2mW
CK793 -2mW
all early Si PNP drift types from Raytheon

CK766 -2mW
CK766A -2mW

both early Ge PNP types also from Raytheon

A facsimile of the D.A.T.A. listing is hosted for these parts by
Datasheet Archive, with the first group of four tabulated on the first
page and first lines of the low power silicon pnp transistor section
and the second group in the same location for low power germanium pnp
transistors. The only parts with lower ratings are those with unstated
(blank) listings.

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/search.php?t=0&q=CK766&manystr=&sub.x=34&sub.y=3

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/search.php?t=0&q=CK721&manystr=&sub.x=38&sub.y=5

If this is a typo from the original spec that your sample datasheet
represents, it certainly has gone on for a considerable length of
time.

There should probably be some official notation made, if only for the
sake of museum records, before unprinted reference resources who can
clear it up disappear. I'm sure data for these parts was published and
republished over the years of the part's commercial life.

Anyone with access to other data sources concerning these part numbers
is requested to respond to this news thread or by e-mail to
leggatmagmadotca. I've already contacted Mr Ward for any suplimentary
info to which he may also have access.

Anyone with a copy of the IEEE Spectrum magazine of March '03 is also
asked to review it's contents for more relevent information, and to
report it in a similar manner.

Hpofully there will be a more diffinitive entry available in time for
the new spreadsheet format of bipolar transistor numbers currently in
the works for free distribution on the web.

RL
 
legg wrote:

The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:
It's better practice to crosspost such questions to all the groups concerned. Then
everyone can see others' replies too.

Graham
 
On Sun, 11 May 2008 01:04:40 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

legg wrote:

The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

It's better practice to crosspost such questions to all the groups concerned. Then
everyone can see others' replies too.
It ain't by preference, believe me.

Couldn't get my agent to cooperate.

I'm monitoring all three and will make sure a real result gets
suitably multi-posted to the threads.

RL
 
On Sun, 11 May 2008 01:04:40 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

legg wrote:

The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

It's better practice to crosspost such questions to all the groups concerned. Then
everyone can see others' replies too.
I've had a response and a data sheet forwarded from Bob McGarrah for
the CK722, one of the '4mW' devices.

The only place 4mW shows up is in the derating factor of 4mW/degC to
0watts at 70degC. Thats 80mW at 50degC and 180mW at 25degC.

If I can see a data sheet for the '2mW' victims and read a 2mW
derating factor, it would point to the source of error.

RL
 
On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:49:18 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

http://www.ck722museum.com/page7.html

- shows ratings for the part of

5nA (collector current) and
30nW(collector power dissipation).

Please note the units used.

The only other source for data on this part is from the D.A.T.A.
catalog series, that gives collector dissipation of the CK722 as 4mW.

The beta test for this part involves a static collector bias of 10V
and 4mA to establish minimum hfe of 30. This would require the part to
dissipate 40mW, at least for the duration of the test, unless a curve
tracer was used. Even then, this exceeds the paper collector current
rating by some orders of magnitude.

Similar part numbers in similar packages are either rated at

40 to 100mW,

or 2 to 4mW.

Is it possible that the latter group suffer from practitioners
dithering around the same possible typo, made by the same typist, at
around the same time? The typo seems only to affect recorded ratings
for part numbers

CK721 -4mW
CK722 -4mW
CK725 -4mW
CK727 -4mW
CK790 -2mW
CK791 -2mW
CK793 -2mW
all early Si PNP drift types from Raytheon

CK766 -2mW
CK766A -2mW

both early Ge PNP types also from Raytheon

A facsimile of the D.A.T.A. listing is hosted for these parts by
Datasheet Archive, with the first group of four tabulated on the first
page and first lines of the low power silicon pnp transistor section
and the second group in the same location for low power germanium pnp
transistors. The only parts with lower ratings are those with unstated
(blank) listings.

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/search.php?t=0&q=CK766&manystr=&sub.x=34&sub.y=3

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/search.php?t=0&q=CK721&manystr=&sub.x=38&sub.y=5

If this is a typo from the original spec that your sample datasheet
represents, it certainly has gone on for a considerable length of
time.

There should probably be some official notation made, if only for the
sake of museum records, before unprinted reference resources who can
clear it up disappear. I'm sure data for these parts was published and
republished over the years of the part's commercial life.

Anyone with access to other data sources concerning these part numbers
is requested to respond to this news thread or by e-mail to
leggatmagmadotca. I've already contacted Mr Ward for any suplimentary
info to which he may also have access.

Anyone with a copy of the IEEE Spectrum magazine of March '03 is also
asked to review it's contents for more relevent information, and to
report it in a similar manner.

Hpofully there will be a more diffinitive entry available in time for
the new spreadsheet format of bipolar transistor numbers currently in
the works for free distribution on the web.
The last CK722 spec I can find dates from 1955, courtesy of Bob
McGarrah, posted as an attachment on a.b.s.e. It is still labeled as
'tentative'. There is also an undistorted version of the image from
the CK722 Museum website, with all 'm's intact. This apparently dates
from 1953.

RL
 
On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:08:17 +0100, "ian field" <dai.ode@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

"legg" <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in message
news:ickb2412niip8jdcjvgvtakrgp8dbripjo@4ax.com...
The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:


A facsimile of the D.A.T.A. listing is hosted for these parts by
Datasheet Archive, with the first group of four tabulated on the first
page and first lines of the low power silicon pnp transistor section
and the second group in the same location for low power germanium pnp
transistors. The only parts with lower ratings are those with unstated
(blank) listings.

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/search.php?t=0&q=CK766&manystr=&sub.x=34&sub.y=3


I wouldn't put too much faith in that page of data - the heading says
"Germanium Transistors", yet it lists OC types in the 300's Beyond OC199 is
silicon.
Luckily it's not the first or only source for old part data, but you'd
be surprised how many part numbers listed by the on-line datasheet
archive rely on them.

Frankly, whoever put it together originally at D.A.T.A. has my
sympathies. I hope he at least had a mainframe to work with, and not
just a filing cabinet of index cards.

RL
 
On Wed, 14 May 2008 12:03:57 -0700, Jitt <tser827@yahoo.com> wrote:


The page is scanned from the 1964 Radio Amateurs handbook,
and contains data for several old transistors besides CK722.
If it is of interest, I'll post a cut section containing the
line of interest.
<snip>

First the line...
Both came through ok on this server. Thanks for the help.

The 180mW dissipation is the 25degC ambient extrapolation using the
4mW derating to zero power at 70degC ambient from the 1955 tentative
data. I don't believe that later figures were actually published, as
point contact devices were quickly superceded in industry.
Manufacturers didn't use ambient deratings for long - shifting to case
temperatures PDQ.

At 50deg ambient, that becomes the 80mW rating given on the 1955
tentative data sheet.

RL
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top