Tom,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Your thoughts on the behavior are correct. The transistor does function "normally" when driven correctly C->E however the breakdown is quite low and agrees with the Keithley 6500 0.75Vdc in the E->C The transistors will also break down with no base drive at about the 0.7 Vdc. I am mildly familiar with avalanche circuits having not needed to work with then out side of 1 or 2 lab circuits, if I am out in left field let me know. But my understanding is that you would avalanche a transistor from C->E to keep it healthy and not shorted. I have not worked with many Ghz + circuits so I am a bit out of my depth here. But isent any E->C current leakage considered a fault. I don’t know of any situations where I would want to avalanche a transistor E->C, but I might have not seen any yet. This is where the plot thickens in terms of 4xx series scopes even more. In a 475 there are 15 of these of which 13 are on the trigger board in the main triggering path. The logic side of the triggering board gets fed from the +15,-15,-8 and +5 power rails. So depending on exactly where the supplies are fed and how I could see some strange things happening. The other 2 locations where this transistor is used there is one in the Z axis amp as well as one in the Horizonal drive section if I remember correctly. Do not have many concerns about these to as they don’t need to deal with + and - wave forms but the triggering sections is a bit weird. Zen -----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tom Lee Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 12:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Is it possible that the 151-0367-00 transistor story is horribly wrong? Hi Zen, Thanks for the data. Looks like there was indeed a typo at Tek back in the day and it didn't get corrected until later (the RPR document I referenced earlier). The cross-reference doc you linked to doesn't have a date that I could find, but I'm guessing it is a lot older than the RPR doc because it still lists a few Shockly (sic) 4-layer diodes without stating that these should not be used for new designs. By the time the RPR doc came out, Shockley diodes hadn't been manufactured for quite a few years. If you get a chance, would you throw one of the (assumed) dead transistors on your curve tracer and see how it looks in both forward and reverse mode? I'm curious to see if it is basically ok in the normal mode, but has a very low breakdown when collector and emitter are swapped. --Cheers, Tom -- Prof. Thomas H. Lee Allen Ctr., Rm. 205 420 Via Palou Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-4070 On 9/18/2023 9:34 PM, Zentronics42@... wrote: Tom, |