The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

http://www.ck722museum.com/page7.html

- shows ratings for the part of

5nA (collector current) and
30nW(collector power dissipation).

Please note the units used.

The only other source for data on this part is from the D.A.T.A.
catalog series, that gives collector dissipation of the CK722 as 4mW.

The beta test for this part involves a static collector bias of 10V
and 4mA to establish minimum hfe of 30. This would require the part to
dissipate 40mW, at least for the duration of the test, unless a curve
tracer was used. Even then, this exceeds the paper collector current
rating by some orders of magnitude.

Similar part numbers in similar packages are either rated at

40 to 100mW,

or 2 to 4mW.

Is it possible that the latter group suffer from practitioners
dithering around the same possible typo, made by the same typist, at
around the same time? The typo seems only to affect recorded ratings
for part numbers

CK721 -4mW
CK722 -4mW
CK725 -4mW
CK727 -4mW
CK790 -2mW
CK791 -2mW
CK793 -2mW
all early Si PNP drift types from Raytheon

CK766 -2mW
CK766A -2mW

both early Ge PNP types also from Raytheon

A facsimile of the D.A.T.A. listing is hosted for these parts by
Datasheet Archive, with the first group of four tabulated on the first
page and first lines of the low power silicon pnp transistor section
and the second group in the same location for low power germanium pnp
transistors. The only parts with lower ratings are those with unstated
(blank) listings.

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/sear...b.x=34&sub.y=3

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/sear...b.x=38&sub.y=5

If this is a typo from the original spec that your sample datasheet
represents, it certainly has gone on for a considerable length of
time.

There should probably be some official notation made, if only for the
sake of museum records, before unprinted reference resources who can
clear it up disappear. I'm sure data for these parts was published and
republished over the years of the part's commercial life.

Anyone with access to other data sources concerning these part numbers
is requested to respond to this news thread or by e-mail to
leggatmagmadotca. I've already contacted Mr Ward for any suplimentary
info to which he may also have access.

Anyone with a copy of the IEEE Spectrum magazine of March '03 is also
asked to review it's contents for more relevent information, and to
report it in a similar manner.

Hpofully there will be a more diffinitive entry available in time for
the new spreadsheet format of bipolar transistor numbers currently in
the works for free distribution on the web.

RL

legg wrote:

The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

http://www.ck722museum.com/page7.html

- shows ratings for the part of

5nA (collector current) and
30nW(collector power dissipation).

Please note the units used.

Those have to be typos with a n in place of an m.

Graham

On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:23:54 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



legg wrote:

The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

http://www.ck722museum.com/page7.html

- shows ratings for the part of

5nA (collector current) and
30nW(collector power dissipation).

Please note the units used.

Those have to be typos with a n in place of an m.

Well I make them too (727 -722), but what I need is a clean source of
data, that makes sense, with a mfr logo on it, or a reference with a
direct relationship to the product. Either can be turned into new
lines on the spreadsheet that will be of use.

Sort of like insisting on an accurate count of branches on the burning
bush, I know.

RL

On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:23:54 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



legg wrote:

The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

http://www.ck722museum.com/page7.html

- shows ratings for the part of

5nA (collector current) and
30nW(collector power dissipation).

Please note the units used.

Those have to be typos with a n in place of an m.

I've had a response and a data sheet forwarded from Bob McGarrah for
the CK722, one of the '4mW' devices.

The only place 4mW shows up is in the derating factor of 4mW/degC to
0watts at 70degC. Thats 80mW at 50degC and 180mW at 25degC.

If I can see a data sheet for the '2mW' victims and read a 2mW
derating factor, it would point to the source of error.

Anyone got any idea what that multipart posting with a CK722 data
label is all about? I see only 4 of 49 parts on this server. If it's a
video, they should be cut up and fed to the phishes.

RL

legg a écrit :
The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

http://www.ck722museum.com/page7.html

- shows ratings for the part of

5nA (collector current) and
30nW(collector power dissipation).


I think the 5nA and 30nW you read are actually 5mA and 30mW. Zooming at
the datasheet show that it has been scanned at a very limited resolution
and image compression does "wonders". At some other places in text "m"
can also be mistaken for "n".

Please note the units used.

The only other source for data on this part is from the D.A.T.A.
catalog series, that gives collector dissipation of the CK722 as 4mW.

The beta test for this part involves a static collector bias of 10V
and 4mA to establish minimum hfe of 30. This would require the part to
dissipate 40mW, at least for the duration of the test, unless a curve
tracer was used. Even then, this exceeds the paper collector current
rating by some orders of magnitude.

Similar part numbers in similar packages are either rated at

40 to 100mW,

or 2 to 4mW.

Is it possible that the latter group suffer from practitioners
dithering around the same possible typo, made by the same typist, at
around the same time? The typo seems only to affect recorded ratings
for part numbers

CK721 -4mW
CK722 -4mW
CK725 -4mW
CK727 -4mW
CK790 -2mW
CK791 -2mW
CK793 -2mW
all early Si PNP drift types from Raytheon

CK766 -2mW
CK766A -2mW

both early Ge PNP types also from Raytheon

A facsimile of the D.A.T.A. listing is hosted for these parts by
Datasheet Archive, with the first group of four tabulated on the first
page and first lines of the low power silicon pnp transistor section
and the second group in the same location for low power germanium pnp
transistors. The only parts with lower ratings are those with unstated
(blank) listings.

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/sear...b.x=34&sub.y=3

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/sear...b.x=38&sub.y=5

If this is a typo from the original spec that your sample datasheet
represents, it certainly has gone on for a considerable length of
time.

There should probably be some official notation made, if only for the
sake of museum records, before unprinted reference resources who can
clear it up disappear. I'm sure data for these parts was published and
republished over the years of the part's commercial life.

Anyone with access to other data sources concerning these part numbers
is requested to respond to this news thread or by e-mail to
leggatmagmadotca. I've already contacted Mr Ward for any suplimentary
info to which he may also have access.

Anyone with a copy of the IEEE Spectrum magazine of March '03 is also
asked to review it's contents for more relevent information, and to
report it in a similar manner.

Hpofully there will be a more diffinitive entry available in time for
the new spreadsheet format of bipolar transistor numbers currently in
the works for free distribution on the web.

RL


--
Thanks,
Fred.

On Mon, 12 May 2008 00:43:50 +0200, Fred Bartoli " " wrote:

legg a écrit :
The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

http://www.ck722museum.com/page7.html

- shows ratings for the part of

5nA (collector current) and
30nW(collector power dissipation).


I think the 5nA and 30nW you read are actually 5mA and 30mW. Zooming at
the datasheet show that it has been scanned at a very limited resolution
and image compression does "wonders". At some other places in text "m"
can also be mistaken for "n".

I don't see bad scanning. Other letters on the identical vertical
axis, including an "m" are uncorrupted, though other instances of m as
n occur elsewhere (enitter and anbient share the same vertical axis)
These look like image format conversion errors due to compression.

Scanning errors are more common on a horizontal (short dimension of
platen), and you can see that in varying text hight and chopped art
detail. The scale and font seems to change between lines, though
constant spacing is preserved between lines.

It doesn't explain 4 or 2mW in the D.A.T.A. source.

I've had a response and a data sheet forwarded from Bob McGarrah for
the CK722, one of the '4mW' devices.

The only place 4mW shows up is in the derating factor of 4mW/degC to
0watts at 70degC. Thats 80mW at 50degC and 180mW at 25degC.

If I can see a data sheet for the '2mW' victims and read a 2mW
derating factor, it would point to the source of error.

RL

legg wrote:

I don't see bad scanning.

Oh I do. Just increase the magnification.

Graham

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:23:54 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



legg wrote:

The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

http://www.ck722museum.com/page7.html

- shows ratings for the part of

5nA (collector current) and
30nW(collector power dissipation).

Please note the units used.

Those have to be typos with a n in place of an m.

I've had a response and a data sheet forwarded from Bob McGarrah for
the CK722, one of the '4mW' devices.

The only place 4mW shows up is in the derating factor of 4mW/degC to
0watts at 70degC. Thats 80mW at 50degC and 180mW at 25degC.

If I can see a data sheet for the '2mW' victims and read a 2mW
derating factor, it would point to the source of error.

Anyone got any idea what that multipart posting with a CK722 data
label is all about? I see only 4 of 49 parts on this server. If it's a
video, they should be cut up and fed to the phishes.

RL

Sorry for the mess, I hadn't posted a binary from this
location before, and it was troublesome. I think I've
stopped it now. It was a scanned page .gif, too big!

On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:54:26 -0700, Jitt wrote:

snip
Anyone with access to other data sources concerning these part numbers
is requested to respond to this news thread or by e-mail to
leggatmagmadotca.
snip
Anyone got any idea what that multipart posting with a CK722 data
label is all about? I see only 4 of 49 parts on this server. If it's a
video, they should be cut up and fed to the phishes.

RL

Sorry for the mess, I hadn't posted a binary from this
location before, and it was troublesome. I think I've
stopped it now. It was a scanned page .gif, too big!

Odd for a gif to accumulate size.

What is on the page? Is it relevant?

See OP for mailing address if less than 6M.

RL

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:54:26 -0700, Jitt wrote:

snip
Anyone with access to other data sources concerning these part numbers
is requested to respond to this news thread or by e-mail to
leggatmagmadotca.
snip
Anyone got any idea what that multipart posting with a CK722 data
label is all about? I see only 4 of 49 parts on this server. If it's a
video, they should be cut up and fed to the phishes.

RL

Sorry for the mess, I hadn't posted a binary from this
location before, and it was troublesome. I think I've
stopped it now. It was a scanned page .gif, too big!

Odd for a gif to accumulate size.

What is on the page? Is it relevant?

See OP for mailing address if less than 6M.

RL

The page is scanned from the 1964 Radio Amateurs handbook,
and contains data for several old transistors besides CK722.
If it is of interest, I'll post a cut section containing the
line of interest.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:39:37 -0700, Jitt wrote:

What is on the page? Is it relevant?

See OP for mailing address if less than 6M.

RL

The page is scanned from the 1964 Radio Amateurs handbook,
and contains data for several old transistors besides CK722.
If it is of interest, I'll post a cut section containing the
line of interest.

The '61 issue had no component data, just an advertizing section.
The '69 edition has none of the older transistors listed in the
component data area.

If you can scan the page, increase the contrast, and shrink it down
(resize) to below 200K, it should be legible and e-mail without
difficulty.

RL

On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:39:37 -0700, Jitt wrote:


Odd for a gif to accumulate size.

What is on the page? Is it relevant?

See OP for mailing address if less than 6M.

RL

The page is scanned from the 1964 Radio Amateurs handbook,
and contains data for several old transistors besides CK722.
If it is of interest, I'll post a cut section containing the
line of interest.

Actually, if it's just line, can't you type it out here?

Just be sure to add the units from the column headings and identify
each rating by the column ident, (max or typical is important)

If any other of the six CK prefixes previously mentioned are there,
I'm interested primarilly in Pdiss, voltage and current limits.

RL

On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:51:18 -0400, legg wrote:

The data sheet for the CK727 illustrated on the web page:

http://www.ck722museum.com/page7.html

- shows ratings for the part of

5nA (collector current) and
30nW(collector power dissipation).

Please note the units used.

The only other source for data on this part is from the D.A.T.A.
catalog series, that gives collector dissipation of the CK722 as 4mW.

The beta test for this part involves a static collector bias of 10V
and 4mA to establish minimum hfe of 30. This would require the part to
dissipate 40mW, at least for the duration of the test, unless a curve
tracer was used. Even then, this exceeds the paper collector current
rating by some orders of magnitude.

Similar part numbers in similar packages are either rated at

40 to 100mW,

or 2 to 4mW.

Is it possible that the latter group suffer from practitioners
dithering around the same possible typo, made by the same typist, at
around the same time? The typo seems only to affect recorded ratings
for part numbers

CK721 -4mW
CK722 -4mW
CK725 -4mW
CK727 -4mW
CK790 -2mW
CK791 -2mW
CK793 -2mW
all early Si PNP drift types from Raytheon

CK766 -2mW
CK766A -2mW

both early Ge PNP types also from Raytheon

A facsimile of the D.A.T.A. listing is hosted for these parts by
Datasheet Archive, with the first group of four tabulated on the first
page and first lines of the low power silicon pnp transistor section
and the second group in the same location for low power germanium pnp
transistors. The only parts with lower ratings are those with unstated
(blank) listings.

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/sear...b.x=34&sub.y=3

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/sear...b.x=38&sub.y=5

If this is a typo from the original spec that your sample datasheet
represents, it certainly has gone on for a considerable length of
time.

There should probably be some official notation made, if only for the
sake of museum records, before unprinted reference resources who can
clear it up disappear. I'm sure data for these parts was published and
republished over the years of the part's commercial life.

Anyone with access to other data sources concerning these part numbers
is requested to respond to this news thread or by e-mail to
leggatmagmadotca. I've already contacted Mr Ward for any suplimentary
info to which he may also have access.

Anyone with a copy of the IEEE Spectrum magazine of March '03 is also
asked to review it's contents for more relevent information, and to
report it in a similar manner.

Hpofully there will be a more diffinitive entry available in time for
the new spreadsheet format of bipolar transistor numbers currently in
the works for free distribution on the web.


The last CK722 spec I can find dates from 1955, courtesy of Bob
McGarrah, posted as an attachment on a.b.s.e. It is still labeled as
'tentative'. There is also an undistorted version of the image from
the CK722 Museum website, with all 'm's intact. This apparently dates
from 1953.

RL

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:39:37 -0700, Jitt wrote:

What is on the page? Is it relevant?

See OP for mailing address if less than 6M.

RL

The page is scanned from the 1964 Radio Amateurs handbook,
and contains data for several old transistors besides CK722.
If it is of interest, I'll post a cut section containing the
line of interest.

The '61 issue had no component data, just an advertizing section.
The '69 edition has none of the older transistors listed in the
component data area.

If you can scan the page, increase the contrast, and shrink it down
(resize) to below 200K, it should be legible and e-mail without
difficulty.

RL

First the line...

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:39:37 -0700, Jitt wrote:

What is on the page? Is it relevant?

See OP for mailing address if less than 6M.

RL

The page is scanned from the 1964 Radio Amateurs handbook,
and contains data for several old transistors besides CK722.
If it is of interest, I'll post a cut section containing the
line of interest.

The '61 issue had no component data, just an advertizing section.
The '69 edition has none of the older transistors listed in the
component data area.

If you can scan the page, increase the contrast, and shrink it down
(resize) to below 200K, it should be legible and e-mail without
difficulty.

RL

Now the header...

On Wed, 14 May 2008 12:05:22 -0700, Jitt wrote:

If you can scan the page, increase the contrast, and shrink it down
(resize) to below 200K, it should be legible and e-mail without
difficulty.

RL

Now the header...

How are you posting this? I see nothing at all, or on your other one
either. What news client are you using? What OS? Does your ISP offer
a "my home page" thing, where you could just put it up? (I've never
had an ISP that didn't.)

I'd like to see the thing just for nostalgia's sake - I used to have
the 1963 edition, about a millennium ago. ;-)

Thanks!
Rich

On Wed, 14 May 2008 12:03:57 -0700, Jitt wrote:


The page is scanned from the 1964 Radio Amateurs handbook,
and contains data for several old transistors besides CK722.
If it is of interest, I'll post a cut section containing the
line of interest.

snip

First the line...

Both came through ok on this server. Thanks for the help.

The 180mW dissipation is the 25degC ambient extrapolation using the
4mW derating to zero power at 70degC ambient from the 1955 tentative
data. I don't believe that later figures were actually published, as
point contact devices were quickly superceded in industry.
Manufacturers didn't use ambient deratings for long - shifting to case
temperatures PDQ.

At 50deg ambient, that becomes the 80mW rating given on the 1955
tentative data sheet.

RL

And combining them...

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Jitt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:39:37 -0700, Jitt wrote:

What is on the page? Is it relevant?

See OP for mailing address if less than 6M.

RL

The page is scanned from the 1964 Radio Amateurs handbook,
and contains data for several old transistors besides CK722.
If it is of interest, I'll post a cut section containing the
line of interest.

The '61 issue had no component data, just an advertizing section.
The '69 edition has none of the older transistors listed in the
component data area.

If you can scan the page, increase the contrast, and shrink it down
(resize) to below 200K, it should be legible and e-mail without
difficulty.

RL

Now the header...