What was the prevailing opinion on the correct way to test for leakage (e.g. ICEO)?
Ed listed some sound reasoning, but I did not see agreement from other members that testing the reverse polarity, IECO was valid or invalid for this transistor. I am asking because I have a bunch of these transistor that seem good when crudely tested for leakage with a positive voltage from collector to emitter with the base open. I suspect that the reverse polarity will breakdown at the 3V limit for emitter to base.
Furthermore, it appears that there is an incorrect identification of the device package. The Tektronix Common Design Parts for semiconductors catalog from Oct 1982 lists this part as a TO-92 (EBC) with no optional pin scramble; however, the parts in my 7A26 and 7B85 are not TO-92. The plastic body looks like a TO-92 but the lead breakout is a triangular configuration. TO-92s are in a line as if stamped as a flat leadframe. TO-92s do not have legs with a circular cross section. The package that is the best fit for what is in my plugins is the X-55. I have never heard of it either but it is on page 9-6 of the Tek semiconductor catalog. The X-55 pins are also reversed relative to the flat face when compared to the standard TO-92. The X-55 matches the pinout of the TI A5T3571.
All of my -0367- parts are TO-92 and they are clearly labeled with the part number. Perhaps for improved reliability or simply a lower cost, Tek changed to a vendor that used TO-92s. I wonder if the "shoot(replace) on sight" declaration should be limited to the X-55 package.
Any further thoughts or guidance?
Clark
