|
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 |
19th Nov 2018, 5:15 am | #21 |
No Longer a Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 2,679
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
The issue of HOT's failing makes a very important point about the whole industry that has cropped around semiconductor fakes and relabeled parts. Probably more than 90% of the time, the people selling fakes get away with it, because the part is placed in a low stress circuit. Nobody knows it is an inferior part, probably with a shortened life, because most of the time everything seems ok. But put an inferior part in a television's line output stage (especially a large screen type) where the peak collector voltages are only just inside a genuine transistor's rating, and it will fail in milliseconds to hours. The counterfeiters should stay away from HOT's, and they would get away with it a lot more.
|
19th Nov 2018, 6:53 am | #22 |
Nonode
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Spalding, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Posts: 2,859
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
I must have 2 or 3 thousand total of IC diodes and transistors owned 30+ years that should be genuine. All unused. I probably only used half a dozen transistors, and a few diodes in the last 5 years.
If I tried selling, they wouldn't make a lot I imagine. I even used to have 2 or 3 RCA 2N3055 from 1968! I can't imagine they would go the way of ECC83 though. Rob
__________________
Apprehension creeping like a tube train up your spine - Cymbaline. Film More soundtrack - Pink Floyd |
19th Nov 2018, 12:02 pm | #23 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 3,687
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
You’d be surprised. The early 2n3055’s work better than the new ones in some power supply arrangements. Tek 7000 linear supply comes to mind. You have to stick a capacitor across base-collector to slow the new ones down.
|
19th Nov 2018, 12:45 pm | #24 |
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,902
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
Old 2N3055 are needed for fixing Quad 303 power amplifiers, so there's an audio connection ready to push the prices up.
David
__________________
Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done |
19th Nov 2018, 2:10 pm | #25 |
No Longer a Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 2,679
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
I have been a 2N3055 enthusiast from the early 1960's when I first saw one as an awestruck boy. Then I used them many times with a happy outcome in each case. They definitely are the "me love you long time transistor".
A while back I picked up 10 of the type shown in the attached photo, RCA and the 2N3055H variant made for an early 1980's mil contract I would think. Super quality. Pic attached. Yet I saw on another forum the 2N3055 being rubbished and it was said that many superior modern transistors had out spec'd them and that the TO-3 case was obsolete too. However, the TO-3 case is thermally superior to any epoxy cased modern power transistor. I would think that the person criticizing them didn't have the emotional attachments or the familiarity I have with them and forgot that they are outstanding transistors and "revolutionary" compared to the germanium types they replaced. If if you select the right application for them that is. They shouldn't even be compared with a modern device with a higher transition frequency. But it was the fact that it is on the lower side that makes the 2N3055 dead easy to work with and easy to tame in power supply and audio applications. But if you attempt to use them in a Royer oscillator, to replace a germanium type, they do require the C-B 0.1uF to tame them or HF instability results, proving that they do have quite a bit of high frequency pep in their step, compared to their germanium predecessors. |
19th Nov 2018, 2:51 pm | #26 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 3,687
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
Completely agree on all points. They feel good to hold as well. Now I sound like a weirdo
|
19th Nov 2018, 3:32 pm | #27 |
Octode
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bristol, UK.
Posts: 1,659
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
@ Argus 25
"They shouldn't even be compared with a modern device with a higher transition frequency. But it was the fact that it is on the lower side that makes the 2N3055 dead easy to work with and easy to tame in power supply and audio applications." But sellers' specs are muddled for the 2N3055. Here's an example where Solid State give the ft as 800kc/s. However, the tagged date sheet gives 2.5Mc/s. I've noticed this variation (error?) with other manufacturers/reputable sources - https://www.newark.com/solid-state/2...-me-pd-mi-alte Any thoughts on this? Are they just citing opposite ends of a range? Mike Last edited by Boulevardier; 19th Nov 2018 at 3:42 pm. |
19th Nov 2018, 3:50 pm | #28 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
It is probably the minimum ft, specmanship rears its head and so 2.5MHz, still within spec..
|
19th Nov 2018, 5:03 pm | #29 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Oxford, UK.
Posts: 4,993
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
Quote:
Craig |
|
19th Nov 2018, 5:20 pm | #30 |
Octode
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bristol, UK.
Posts: 1,659
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
"It is probably the minimum ft, specmanship rears its head and so 2.5MHz, still within spec.."
Still massively weird not to give the 2.5MHz figure in the official datasheet though - which surely should be the minimum ft ... Here's another one the same from Farnell - https://uk.farnell.com/multicomp/2n3...o-3/dp/1165889 Last edited by Boulevardier; 19th Nov 2018 at 5:32 pm. |
19th Nov 2018, 8:14 pm | #31 |
Nonode
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Coulsdon, London, UK.
Posts: 2,169
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
Are you talking about the 2N3055E or 2N3055H?
|
19th Nov 2018, 8:19 pm | #32 |
Octode
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bristol, UK.
Posts: 1,659
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
I've never encountered 2N3055E. No, I'm just talking about plain old 2N3055, though I don't think any of the variants differ in ft. I think 2N3055H only differs in SOA.
Mike |
19th Nov 2018, 8:45 pm | #33 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 4,400
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
Quote:
T0-3 is only obsolete in the sense that it costs more per device than modern plastic packages- not obsolete in the sense of ruggedness, environmental sealing or heat transfer. There's a degree of "doing the job properly" about marking out and drilling a thick chunk of aluminium in that 4-diamond (yeah, need to get out more...) I don't suppose that NOS vintage RCA 2N3055s will attain the mystique and value of M-O V U52s anytime soon, but I reckon they're at least worth not chucking out too glibly. |
|
19th Nov 2018, 11:06 pm | #34 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Leominster, Herefordshire, UK.
Posts: 16,536
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
Isn't 2N3055E just a "slang" term for the livelier epitaxial versions vs the "dormant doorstop" that was the original (latterly called 2N3055H to identify it as hometaxial) type?
__________________
....__________ ....|____||__|__\_____ .=.| _---\__|__|_---_|. .........O..Chris....O |
19th Nov 2018, 11:36 pm | #35 |
Octode
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bristol, UK.
Posts: 1,659
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
Don't know what "E" could stand for - I've never even seen it. If you look at some 2N3055H data sheets it says that the "H" signifies extended SOA, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't stand for Hometaxial. Similarly, in 2N3055G, "G" stands for lead-free construction.
If only the "H" did separate out the old lower ft hometaxials! Life would be a lot simpler. As things are (afaik) the only way to tell them from epitaxials is to actually measure the ft on a test jig! I don't think they should ever have been given the same type number - the differences are too important to leave them with the same number. Mike Last edited by Boulevardier; 19th Nov 2018 at 11:50 pm. |
19th Nov 2018, 11:48 pm | #36 | |
No Longer a Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 2,679
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
Quote:
The only data sheet I would trust is RCA's original one from the early 1960's, applied to a genuine vintage (probably pre 1970 or 1980) 2N2055.Most likely after that the data sheets got altered to match the faster parts. |
|
20th Nov 2018, 1:18 am | #37 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Leominster, Herefordshire, UK.
Posts: 16,536
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
Quote:
__________________
....__________ ....|____||__|__\_____ .=.| _---\__|__|_---_|. .........O..Chris....O |
|
20th Nov 2018, 2:40 am | #38 |
Octode
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bristol, UK.
Posts: 1,659
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
Interesting thoughts - that could explain the "H". But I have never seen an "E", and a google search on 2N3055E comes back with zero matches.
|
20th Nov 2018, 5:49 pm | #39 |
Nonode
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Coulsdon, London, UK.
Posts: 2,169
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
I used '2N3055E' as shorthand for the epitaxial version which has been mentioned in previous threads.
I don't want anyone to waste their time looking for one. I'm sorry for the confusion. |
20th Nov 2018, 6:18 pm | #40 |
Heptode
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Boston, Lincolnshire, UK.
Posts: 995
|
Re: Counterfeit transistors: a cautionary lesson
I was told the 'H' simply signified heavy duty - it makes no sense for it to be for Hometaxial, e.g., the RCA 2N3055H in Argus25's photo above, are date stamped '8218', so wk. 18 of 1982 - which I believe (?) was several years after RCA stopped using the Hometaxial process.
|