Searching \ for '[EE]: RF transistor colouring' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/io/serials.htm?key=rf
Search entire site for: 'RF transistor colouring'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]: RF transistor colouring'
2002\08\22@150035 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Does anyone know why RF transistors in the 86 plastic package are
coloured either black or white?

I have a circuit with two transistors marked 414 in the 86 Plastic
Package, which, I believe, implies that they are 41486s.  What is
strange is that I have two of these circuits, and both of them have
one black 41486, and one white 41486.  Does anyone know the reasoning
behind this?

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPWU0WQVk8xtQuK+BEQLsJwCeL3C6kjftzDyj1HSSIkI6XfV8iqgAniDx
7HMw5motga3XAowb4B1JHJoS
=UpA4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\22@150610 by Jim

flavicon
face
Are these FETS or Bipolar?

Idss grading or V_subp (FET) or

gain (beta), perhaps f_subt (transition frequency) (BIPOLAR)?

RF Jim

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\22@151211 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face

£¥TmOãFæS+!ñúitýPÁyriÄquCLp^îTUÕÚYÛ>Ä^ßîþSÿcgcB¯´Ò5'
cïÎìÌ3Ï<³~ÿfÚûnooïDÿ:ÖµíÀèz®}íX=Z®k^[ãÁ~YȨ
n߬ìì#ºþIPè°"¯^À à3ágLAÎT"KAC è-O&þx

2002\08\22@151717 by Jim

flavicon
face
???

RF Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brendan Moran" <spam_OUTbmoranTakeThisOuTspamMILLENNIUM.CA>
To: <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [EE]: RF transistor colouring


> # %TmOcF fS+!q zit}P Ay riDqu CL  p^nTUUZY[>D^_n  ~S cgc B/4R5'
> coNlL3O<3 ~ fZ{noooD :V5m@hz .}mX= Z.k^[ cA~YH(
> n_, l l #:~IPh0"/^ @  `3agLANT"KA  C h-O&~ x
>
>
?[i |0B~o-+-r?!S{S.cH 8,6+ -Hb=gm?7zv'_z7'7 21'z?[i |0B~o-+-r??j7!Sw,~S]zV"

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\22@153418 by Brendan Moran
flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I have no idea how that happened.  It's never happened before.  It
should have read:

They are two RF BJTs in a circuit rated for 10-500MHz.

Now, hopefully, this one will transmit correctly.

- --Brendan

> £¥TmOãFæS+!ñúitýPÁyriÄquCLp^îTUÕÚYÛ>Ä^ßîþSÿcgcB¯´Ò5'
> cïÎìÌ3Ï<³~ÿfÚûnooïDÿ:ÖµíÀèz®}íX=Z®k^[ãÁ~YȨ
> n߬ìì#ºþIPè°"¯^À à3ágLAÎT"KAC è-O&þx
>
> ÿøm¶Yÿÿ 0þ~o-+-ýÊ&?)íý8^<?ÿÚ­Èb½ë¢·^µ¨¥

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPWU5TgVk8xtQuK+BEQIrDwCfVlqpn49kfgsRlINOCTahI+/90TsAmgOt
BVaqxpLsTYfD1+d1X+BF/lz1
=ZwQY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\22@155039 by Jim

flavicon
face
These sound like the little un-tuned 50 Ohm
jobs that require one load resistor/choke on
the output - are they?

In that case I'll bet this is grade for gain -
with the output part rated for a little
more power-output *but* less gain.

Looks lile some gobledegook issued forth from the
PGP encoder on that last try!

RF Jim



{Original Message removed}

2002\08\22@160221 by Jim

flavicon
face
Looking at the HP data sheet for these - these
are 6 GHz Low Noise Silicon Bipolar Transistors
and *not* gain blocks as I was guessing!

I still think it's a gain-grading perhaps
screened for the app you've got  ...

RF Jim

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\22@164048 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Looks lile some gobledegook issued forth from the
> PGP encoder on that last try!

I think I typed a letter at the same time as it was attempting to
automatically copy my message out of the OE window, and somehow, that
managed to scramble everything.

The PGP software itself is good, but the plugins have some obvious
faults.

*Apparently garbles everything when in the process of copying and a
letter key is struck
*Fails to copy text out if another window is switched to before
copying is complete.
*Fails to encode text if another window is switched to before text
has been copied back in, but sends anyway.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPWVL0gVk8xtQuK+BEQI24ACcDhFrfaxyI7M4XDLpSVEL2WmtbYEAnjrm
hiKAZ6B1PzVDwua4+t0CZgs1
=mGiL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\22@171515 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
> > Looks lile some gobledegook issued forth from the
> > PGP encoder on that last try!

Yes, it did.  You could just use PLAIN TEXT, wrapped to between 72 and 80
characters.  That would save everyone on the list having to see the stupid
PGP "signature" and header.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\22@174150 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
> Yes, it did.  You could just use PLAIN TEXT, wrapped to between 72 and 80
> characters.  That would save everyone on the list having to see the stupid
> PGP "signature" and header.

What is stupid about a signature that validates (quite reliably) the source
of an email?

I started a thread:
[OT]: Signatures
asking if anyone cared before I started using them.  The only response to
that thread was:

http://www.piclist.com/postbot.asp?id=piclist\2002\07\10\091958a

Which reads:
"Fine by me."

Can we stop this game, now?  I'm getting sick of it.

--Brendan

P.S. for your "convenience", then PGP signature has not been included on
this post.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\22@184225 by David Duffy

flavicon
face
At 02:40 PM 22/08/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > Yes, it did.  You could just use PLAIN TEXT, wrapped to between 72 and 80
> > characters.  That would save everyone on the list having to see the stupid
> > PGP "signature" and header.
>
>What is stupid about a signature that validates (quite reliably) the source
>of an email?
>
>I started a thread:
>[OT]: Signatures
>asking if anyone cared before I started using them.  The only response to
>that thread was:
>
>  http://www.piclist.com/postbot.asp?id=piclist\2002\07\10\091958a
>
>Which reads:
>"Fine by me."

Hi Brendan,
Please remember that not everybody subscribes to the [OT]: channel.
I don't and I'm sure a lot of others don't. Don't take this the wrong way.
The good that comes from the PicList far outweighs the bad. :-)
Plain text with no VC cards, etc does seem to be the preferred way
of posting to the PicList.

>Can we stop this game, now?  I'm getting sick of it.

Somethimes it's just better to not inflame the situation any further.
Regards...
___________________________________________
David Duffy        Audio Visual Devices P/L
U8, 9-11 Trade St, Cleveland 4163 Australia
Ph: +61 7 38210362   Fax: +61 7 38210281
New Web: http://www.audiovisualdevices.com.au
___________________________________________

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\22@185657 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
> Please remember that not everybody subscribes to the [OT]: channel.
> I don't and I'm sure a lot of others don't. Don't take this the wrong way.
> The good that comes from the PicList far outweighs the bad. :-)
> Plain text with no VC cards, etc does seem to be the preferred way
> of posting to the PicList.

I realise that not everyone subscribes to [OT]:  But, I would have thought
that there wouldn't be a problem when the list's admin said it was fine.
PGP signatures are in plain text.  They take less space than some of the
normal signatures I've seen, and they are generally out of the way, where
you don't have to look at them.  I didn't think it was a problem.  No one
who was on the [OT]: channel at the time said it was a problem.

I still don't see the real difference between having a PGP signature and a
conventional signature.  I see some far larger things to be concerned about
if you want to go correcting people's list behaviour.  For instance, the
lack of trimming on many replies.

--Brendan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\22@185904 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
> Looking at the HP data sheet for these - these
> are 6 GHz Low Noise Silicon Bipolar Transistors
> and *not* gain blocks as I was guessing!
>
> I still think it's a gain-grading perhaps
> screened for the app you've got  ...

Hmm... Could they be graded for noise, rather than gain?  The white one is
the first stage, and the black is the second.

--Brendan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\22@202731 by David Duffy

flavicon
face
At 03:56 PM 22/08/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > Please remember that not everybody subscribes to the [OT]: channel.
> > I don't and I'm sure a lot of others don't. Don't take this the wrong way.
> > The good that comes from the PicList far outweighs the bad. :-)
> > Plain text with no VC cards, etc does seem to be the preferred way
> > of posting to the PicList.
>
>I realise that not everyone subscribes to [OT]:  But, I would have thought
>that there wouldn't be a problem when the list's admin said it was fine.
>PGP signatures are in plain text.  They take less space than some of the
>normal signatures I've seen, and they are generally out of the way, where
>you don't have to look at them.  I didn't think it was a problem.  No one
>who was on the [OT]: channel at the time said it was a problem.
>
>I still don't see the real difference between having a PGP signature and a
>conventional signature.

No difference really. What can I say - some people get upset easily!

>I see some far larger things to be concerned about
>if you want to go correcting people's list behavior.  For instance, the
>lack of trimming on many replies.

This has often been an issue & will continue to be I suspect.
Regards...
___________________________________________
David Duffy        Audio Visual Devices P/L
U8, 9-11 Trade St, Cleveland 4163 Australia
Ph: +61 7 38210362   Fax: +61 7 38210281
New Web: http://www.audiovisualdevices.com.au
___________________________________________

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\22@204237 by Jim

flavicon
face
Noise figure is something that can be assured
over a wafer a little easier than things like
Idss, Vp and g_subm (gm), and these last two
parameters are something that can be probed on-wafer
whereas NF (on a discrete part such as this)
cannot owing to the fact that there are no pads/RF
structures to bring in the 'stripline RF probes'
and perform this high-frequency measurement at
frequency (like 1 GHz).

To assure a wafer is at a particular NF value testing
is done on specialized transisitor test-structures
that possess the necessary RF pads in test reticles
that allow just a few easy, quick RF measurements
(RF measurements take more time per part, require
specialized RF probes versus the simpler "probe
cards" used for DC tests and also requires a Noise
Figure Measuring Test Set, plus DC supplies to bias
the part during testing).

Since the gain of the device can be tracked via so-called
"DC on-wafer tests" (that don't require specialized
conditions like on-wafer RF testing does) the
gm (transconductance), Vp (gate pinch-off voltage) and
Idss (drain current with zero gate voltage) parameters
can be measured and logged -

- tests which also assure device functionality - I'd say
that those marks were for gain-binning.

But, I could be wrong. I don't know what this manufacturer
was doing - and I was just extrapolating based on what our
foundry did (our product was GaAs devices, including
discretes and MMIC's (Microwave Monolithic Integrated
Circuits - almost RF SOIC's in some cases!).

RF Jim

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\23@120021 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
> Noise figure is something that can be assured
> over a wafer a little easier than things like
> Idss, Vp and g_subm (gm), and these last two
> parameters are something that can be probed on-wafer
> whereas NF (on a discrete part such as this)
> cannot owing to the fact that there are no pads/RF
> structures to bring in the 'stripline RF probes'
> and perform this high-frequency measurement at
> frequency (like 1 GHz).
>
> To assure a wafer is at a particular NF value testing
> is done on specialized transisitor test-structures
> that possess the necessary RF pads in test reticles
> that allow just a few easy, quick RF measurements
> (RF measurements take more time per part, require
> specialized RF probes versus the simpler "probe
> cards" used for DC tests and also requires a Noise
> Figure Measuring Test Set, plus DC supplies to bias
> the part during testing).

Ahh... All becomes clear.  I know very little of IC manufacture.  Just a
little bit about some parts.  I was extrapolating that based on the
placement in the circuit, but you are, I have no doubt quite correct.

{Quote hidden}

I doubt, at this stage, that you're wrong.  Everything you mentioned makes
sense to me.  (I've used a NF meter before, but not with much success, and
I'm not really a RF tech, but I'm having to do the job for now)

--Brendan

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\08\23@193708 by Simon Bryden

flavicon
face
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:56:25PM -0700, Brendan Moran wrote:
>
> I realise that not everyone subscribes to [OT]:  But, I would have thought
> that there wouldn't be a problem when the list's admin said it was fine.
> PGP signatures are in plain text.  They take less space than some of the
> normal signatures I've seen, and they are generally out of the way, where
> you don't have to look at them.  I didn't think it was a problem.  No one
> who was on the [OT]: channel at the time said it was a problem.
>
> I still don't see the real difference between having a PGP signature and a
> conventional signature.  I see some far larger things to be concerned about
> if you want to go correcting people's list behaviour.  For instance, the
> lack of trimming on many replies.
>
As far as I can see they are totally different. A conventional signature gives
some info about titles/phone numbers etc and a PGP signature provides a method
of authenticating the sender of a message. It's debatable how well PGP does
this outside of closed trust frameworks, in any case I don't see why a post to
the piclist should require non-repudiatable authentication of the sender.

Simon.
---

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\08\23@195325 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
> As far as I can see they are totally different. A conventional signature
gives
> some info about titles/phone numbers etc and a PGP signature provides a
method
> of authenticating the sender of a message. It's debatable how well PGP
does
> this outside of closed trust frameworks, in any case I don't see why a
post to
> the piclist should require non-repudiatable authentication of the sender.

I will reply to this on the [OT]: channel, as it has obviously passed the
bounds of [EE]: now.

--Brendan

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...