|
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 |
11th May 2019, 7:44 pm | #1 |
Pentode
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 149
|
CV10806 "better" than BC107?
A visit to the Langrex site today in search of some BC107s threw up the CV10806 as an equivalent alternative. I wondered whether these were just standard devices re-marked with a CV number or whether they would have received any form of enhanced screening or other testing. Does anyone happen to know the answer?
|
11th May 2019, 10:11 pm | #2 |
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,801
|
Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?
Well, the SEMELAB CV10806 datasheet quotes lower Vcoe than the NXP BC107 data (30 versus 50V) and a higher Hfe (200 versus 110). Ft doesn't get mentioned for CV10806.
So it's either worse or better, depending on the application. Often numerical differences in specs are the result of testing under different conditions, but this time both Hfe figures are quoted at 2mA and 5v which makes direct comparison easy. David
__________________
Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done |
11th May 2019, 11:22 pm | #3 | |
Pentode
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 149
|
Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?
Quote:
Was the CV system displaced by the advent of the NATO Stock Number (NSN) or is it still used in military and professional circles? |
|
12th May 2019, 2:16 am | #4 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
Posts: 4,185
|
Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?
BC109B actually has a minimum hFE of 200 @2mA and 5V.
|
12th May 2019, 7:50 am | #5 |
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,801
|
Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?
Ah, and the 30v rating.
The cinderella moment? David
__________________
Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done |
12th May 2019, 7:52 am | #6 |
Pentode
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 149
|
Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?
According to the list at http://www.tubecollector.org/cv/1963/ the CV10806 is a BC109. It's also listed as a CV10769. The BC107 is a CV7980.
That seems to settle it although it would still be interesting to know whether there is or was any difference in testing or screening between CV devices and others. I vaguely recall a period when some semiconductors were available with a 'BS' designation, e.g. BC107BS. Anyone know what that was about? Last edited by GW4FRX; 12th May 2019 at 7:58 am. |
12th May 2019, 6:30 pm | #7 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
Posts: 4,185
|
Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?
I don't know about the BS designation, but I have another quick note to add. The 30V versus 50V rating may have once been relevant, but I suspect that (at least in more modern examples) the actual silicon die used is the same across the range and the numbers and letters are just the result of binning. It seems quite possible that given a good production run, every transistor produced would have qualified as either a BC546 or a BC550 (or both) and was marked with a 'lower' spec according to market demand.
|
12th May 2019, 7:05 pm | #8 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wiltshire, UK.
Posts: 13,953
|
Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?
The BC107/108/109 range of transistors [whether the A B or C variants] were really rather generic - the lower-numbered/lettered versions were the 'low-spec' ones that got selected-out from the production-line and sold cheaply because despite being the underachievers they still had a role.
[Same goes for the different colour-coded gain-groups of the likes of the 2N2926] |
12th May 2019, 10:33 pm | #9 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lynton, N. Devon, UK.
Posts: 7,061
|
Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?
I rather think that with today's process control, all devices will pass both the 50V requirement and the 4db noise requirement so they could be marked BC107, 8 OR 9, whichever happens to be on order at the time!
|
13th May 2019, 9:22 pm | #10 | |
Pentode
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 149
|
Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?
Quote:
I know some companies don't allow the use of 'Multicomp' semiconductors from Farnell because of their unknown provenance. Is there anything in that, or do modern processes more or less guarantee reliable devices? |
|