开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 开云体育

Re: Is it possible that the 151-0367-00 transistor story is horribly wrong?


 

Tom,
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,
The reference document showing the MPSH05 is Tektronix's own transistor cross reference document. Located right side of the page. However a search of the document also cross references to a A5T3571 AND a SKA6516. So the plot thickens some more.

In looking at the A5T3571 The tek xref has this part number specified
at 1.2Ghz I was not able to pull a data sheet for a SKA6516

In testing a newer one with out tarnished legs it behaved fine on the curve tracer and I think we have another clue as to the "real part number" given that the curve tracer is well in spec and dialed in I pushed the transistor to mild breakdown. Not to damage but just to when breakdown was starting. The 151-0367-00 that came out of the 457a on the bench currently breaks down right at 25Vdc so that is in line with the A5T3571 data sheet. Which would point to this being a 1.2Ghz part.

Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.