UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Powered By Google Custom Search Vintage Radio and TV Service Data

Go Back   UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum > General Vintage Technology > Components and Circuits

Notices

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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 11th May 2019, 7:44 pm   #1
GW4FRX
Pentode
 
GW4FRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 149
Default 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?
GW4FRX is offline  
Old 11th May 2019, 10:11 pm   #2
Radio Wrangler
Moderator
 
Radio Wrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,799
Default 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
Radio Wrangler is online now  
Old 11th May 2019, 11:22 pm   #3
GW4FRX
Pentode
 
GW4FRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 149
Default Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio Wrangler View Post
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
That's interesting, since the CV10806 seems to be quite often posited as a BC107 equivalent although the CV list from 1963 suggests it's a BC109!

Was the CV system displaced by the advent of the NATO Stock Number (NSN) or is it still used in military and professional circles?
GW4FRX is offline  
Old 12th May 2019, 2:16 am   #4
Maarten
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
Posts: 4,184
Default Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?

BC109B actually has a minimum hFE of 200 @2mA and 5V.
Maarten is offline  
Old 12th May 2019, 7:50 am   #5
Radio Wrangler
Moderator
 
Radio Wrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,799
Default 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
Radio Wrangler is online now  
Old 12th May 2019, 7:52 am   #6
GW4FRX
Pentode
 
GW4FRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 149
Default Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maarten View Post
BC109B actually has a minimum hFE of 200 @2mA and 5V.
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.
GW4FRX is offline  
Old 12th May 2019, 6:30 pm   #7
Maarten
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
Posts: 4,184
Default 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.
Maarten is offline  
Old 12th May 2019, 7:05 pm   #8
G6Tanuki
Dekatron
 
G6Tanuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wiltshire, UK.
Posts: 13,951
Default 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]
G6Tanuki is offline  
Old 12th May 2019, 10:33 pm   #9
kalee20
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lynton, N. Devon, UK.
Posts: 7,059
Default 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!
kalee20 is offline  
Old 13th May 2019, 9:22 pm   #10
GW4FRX
Pentode
 
GW4FRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 149
Default Re: CV10806 "better" than BC107?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalee20 View Post
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!
Would there be any difference in reliability between -- for example -- Philips NOS items from the 1990s and modern components from the likes of CDIL or Central?

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?
GW4FRX is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 2:07 pm.


All information and advice on this forum is subject to the WARNING AND DISCLAIMER located at https://www.vintage-radio.net/rules.html.
Failure to heed this warning may result in death or serious injury to yourself and/or others.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2002 - 2023, Paul Stenning.