|
Components and Circuits For discussions about component types, alternatives and availability, circuit configurations and modifications etc. Discussions here should be of a general nature and not about specific sets. |
|
Thread Tools |
21st May 2019, 6:51 pm | #1 |
Pentode
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 149
|
BC107 Vce disparities
Thanks to the generosity of a very kind gentleman on here I've just received a very useful packet of BC107s.
There seems to be a very wide spread of Vce values quoted in the data sheets for these, anywhere between 25 and 50V. Rather oddly the figure for the supposedly complementary BC177 is given in all sources as 45V. Anyone have a definitive Vce figure for these devices? |
21st May 2019, 9:13 pm | #2 |
Rest in Peace
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Solihull, West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 4,872
|
Re: BC107 Vce disparities
Wasn't higher than normal voltage handling the whole point of the BC107? BC109 was high gain and low noise; BC108 was everything else, but often put into current gain bins.
|
21st May 2019, 9:20 pm | #3 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 27,937
|
Re: BC107 Vce disparities
|
21st May 2019, 10:02 pm | #4 | |
Pentode
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 149
|
Re: BC107 Vce disparities
Quote:
The Wiki entry seems to be a good summary. |
|
23rd May 2019, 11:25 am | #5 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
Posts: 4,199
|
Re: BC107 Vce disparities
The BC107 is supposed to be identical to the BC547 except for dissipation. Philips used the exact same die in them once they were both in production. The identical dies should be in at least BC107, BC147, BC237, BC407, BC547, BC847 the only difference being in the case.
Of course, if some manufacturer gives different data on a particular type, that's only appliccable to devices of that particular manufacturer (if it's not an error). Sometimes different manufacturers have different specs, even though that should have been avoided. One possible cause of such differences is the manufacturer in question stamping a roughly equivalent transistor from their existing range. In the early days, differences could have been caused by limitations of the production process or simply by not having the correct data on the competitors device. |
23rd May 2019, 11:35 am | #6 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 27,937
|
Re: BC107 Vce disparities
When the quoted Vce is dramatically different then it's normally an error. The whole point of the BC107 et al is to have a higher voltage variant of the BC108.
I suspect the BC546-9s are actually all the same part now, able to meet the voltage specs of the BC546 and the noise specs of the BC549. They are just marked differently for marketing reasons. |
23rd May 2019, 12:03 pm | #7 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Worksop, Nottinghamshire, UK.
Posts: 5,553
|
Re: BC107 Vce disparities
They most likely just aimed for the higher spec and printed the numbers on to fulfill the orders as they came in.
|
23rd May 2019, 5:20 pm | #8 | |
Pentode
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 149
|
Re: BC107 Vce disparities
Quote:
|
|
24th May 2019, 11:49 am | #9 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
Posts: 4,199
|
Re: BC107 Vce disparities
I forgot one identical equivalent, might be BC182. Also what paulsherwin says is very likely, parts being binned on characteristics.
|