UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Powered By Google Custom Search Vintage Radio 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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21st May 2019, 6:51 pm   #1
GW4FRX
Pentode
 
GW4FRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 134
Default 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?
GW4FRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2019, 9:13 pm   #2
G8HQP Dave
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Solihull, West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 4,747
Default 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.
G8HQP Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2019, 9:20 pm   #3
paulsherwin
Moderator
 
paulsherwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 17,963
Default Re: BC107 Vce disparities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC108_family
paulsherwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2019, 10:02 pm   #4
GW4FRX
Pentode
 
GW4FRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 134
Default Re: BC107 Vce disparities

Quote:
Originally Posted by G8HQP Dave View Post
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.
That was the impression I had, but several data sheets list the BC107 with a Vce of 25V. I'd always assumed it was 45V as with the BC177.

The Wiki entry seems to be a good summary.
GW4FRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:25 am   #5
Maarten
Nonode
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
Posts: 2,328
Default 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.
Maarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:35 am   #6
paulsherwin
Moderator
 
paulsherwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 17,963
Default 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.
paulsherwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2019, 12:03 pm   #7
Refugee
Dekatron
 
Refugee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Worksop, Nottinghamshire, UK.
Posts: 4,058
Default 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.
Refugee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2019, 5:20 pm   #8
GW4FRX
Pentode
 
GW4FRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 134
Default Re: BC107 Vce disparities

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maarten View Post
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.
Fascinating stuff -- many thanks to all for the enlightenment. It's amazing what you learn on this forum.
GW4FRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2019, 11:49 am   #9
Maarten
Nonode
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
Posts: 2,328
Default Re: BC107 Vce disparities

I forgot one identical equivalent, might be BC182. Also what paulsherwin says is very likely, parts being binned on characteristics.
Maarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 6:13 am.


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 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2002 - 2019, Paul Stenning.